WASHINGTON (CN) - The Supreme Court sided against a firefighter who was forced to retire because of Parkinson's disease on Friday, finding that she can't file a post-employment discrimination suit against her department.
In a 7-2 opinion, the justices concluded that individuals pursuing such suits must prove they held or desired a job, and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, at the time of an employer's act of disability-based discrimination.
While it is unlawful for a covered employer to discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to compensation, the justices found the statute does not extend to retirees.
Congress' use of present-tense verbs such as "holds," "desires" and "can perform" signals an intent to protect individuals able to do the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer discrimination, not retirees who neither hold nor desire a job, the justices wrote.
When looking at the statute's definition of "reasonable accommodation," which includes, "job restructuring," modifying "existing facilities used by employees," and altering "training materials or policies," they found it pertains to current employees or applicants, but not to retirees.
"Those kinds of accommodations make perfect sense when it comes to current employees or applicants. But it is hard to see how they might apply to retirees who do not hold or seek a job," Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote.
Similarly, its examples of discrimination, such as "qualification standards" and "employment tests," aim to protect job holders and seekers, not retirees, he added.
Karen Stanley's nearly two-decade firefighting career was cut short by Parkinson's disease. When Stanley joined the fire department in the Florida city of Sanford back in 1999, her employment package included a $1,000 monthly health insurance subsidy. The benefit was available to current employees and qualifying retirees until they reached the age of 65.
Upon retirement in 2018, however, she discovered that her health benefits ended 16 years earlier than expected.
Stanley's Parkinson's disease forced her to retire at 47. Instead of receiving an insurance subsidiary for the next 18 years, Stanley learned she'd only be entitled to the benefit for 24 months, or until her Medicare benefits kicked in. That's because in 2003, Sanford updated its benefits eligibility for disabled employees, and under the new policy, disabled retirees had their benefits cut while others did not.
Stanley tried to file a discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Her effort was short-circuited when a lower court ruled that she no longer qualified as a disabled individual for post-employment benefits.
The 11th Circuit affirmed, finding that Stanley was not a qualified individual at the time the city discontinued her subsidy payments since she was a retiree, not an employee. The appeals court said that Stanley couldn't cite the city's 2003 policy change in her discrimination suit because she was not disabled at the time.
At the Supreme Court in January, the justices worried about opening the floodgates to stale discrimination claims.
Source: Courthouse News Service
