The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a dispute about whether a firefighter who retired early because of Parkinson’s disease can sue the city of Sanford under the Americans with Disabilities Act for alleged discrimination in benefits.
Karyn Stanley went to the Supreme Court after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year said she could not sue under part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case stems from Stanley losing a health-insurance subsidy two years after she retired.
Stanley began working as a firefighter for the city in 1999 but was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016. She took disability retirement in 2018 at age 47, according to a petition her attorneys filed in March at the Supreme Court.
Read :Hillsborough County State Attorney Suzy Lopez Bolsters Gun Violence Prosecution Efforts
The city provided a health-insurance subsidy to Stanley for two years before halting it. Stanley filed a lawsuit alleging a city policy that stopped the subsidy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Among other things, her attorneys wrote in the petition that the city in 1999 — when Stanley was hired — provided health-insurance subsidies up to age 65 for firefighters who retired after 25 years of service or because of disability. The city changed the policy in a 2003 cost-cutting move to scale back the benefit to two years for firefighters who retired early because of disability, the petition said.
Stanley’s attorneys alleged that was improper discrimination.
“This new policy produces vastly different results for disabled and non-disabled retirees,” the petition said. “A firefighter retiring after 25 years of service is eligible for the subsidy until she turns 65 (which could amount to as many as 22 years). If that same firefighter is injured in the line of duty or develops a career-ending illness one year before she completes her 25 years of service, the subsidy lasts only for 24 months.”
The city, in urging the Supreme Court to reject the case, disputed the allegations, saying Stanley “simply failed to satisfy the city’s service-based criteria for earning the subsidy to age 65. Had she served 25 years, she would have received it regardless of her disability.”
Read: California Disney Execs Sue Company Over Scrapped Florida Relocation
“Petitioner (Stanley) retired early with only 20 years of service,” the city’s attorneys wrote in a May brief. “Although her reason for retiring early is indeed tragic, it did not render the denial of the subsidy to age 65 unlawful or even unfair. Nondisabled retirees with only 20 years of service also did not receive the subsidy to age 65, no matter how unfortunate their reasons for retiring early. In fact, petitioner was treated better than non-disabled retirees with the same amount of service because while they received no subsidy at all, petitioner received the subsidy for 24 months out of compassion for her disability.”
The key issue in Stanley’s petition centers on whether she could sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act — not necessarily whether she should prevail on the underlying discrimination claim.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Stanley, as a former employee, could not sue under what is known as Title I of the law. The panel cited an 11th Circuit precedent that a “former employee who does not hold or desire to hold an employment position cannot sue over discriminatory post-employment benefits.”
Read :Florida Governor DeSantis Signs HB 7063 To Strengthen Anti-Human Trafficking Efforts
“We (in the precedent) recognized that the ADA protects against discrimination in fringe benefits, such as health insurance, because these benefits have always been recognized as one example of a term, condition, or privilege of employment,” the ruling in Stanley’s case said. “But because the ADA prohibits discrimination only as to those individuals who hold or desire to hold a job, we reasoned that a former employee cannot bring suit under Title I to remedy discrimination in the provision of post-employment fringe benefits.”
In asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, Stanley’s attorneys pointed to conflicting rulings by federal appellate courts on the issue. While the Supreme Court does not announce its reasons for taking up cases, resolving such conflicts can be a basis.
Help support the Tampa Free Press by making any small donation by clicking here.
Android Users, Click To Download The Tampa Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our free newsletter.