WASHINGTON − On Monday, the Supreme Court deliberated on whether the federal protections for employees with disabilities apply to those who have retired, an issue that has led to conflicting rulings in lower courts.

However, both the lawyers representing the disabled firefighter involved in the case and those from the Justice Department indicated that the court could sidestep this larger issue and simply determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protections against discrimination are applicable in this particular firefighter’s situation.

“You could say that the broader questions are more complicated,” noted Justice Department lawyer Frederick Liu. “Typically, this court prefers not to tackle broader issues unless necessary.”

A more extensive ruling could significantly impact countless older Americans who retire due to disabilities.

The case revolves around a firefighter who retired after serving nearly two decades with the City of Sanford, Florida.

Karyn Stanley, who started her role in 1999, had health benefits that would last until she turned 65 if she either retired after 25 years or became disabled. Following her retirement in 2018 due to Parkinson’s disease, she learned that the disabled retirees’ benefits had been reduced back in 2003. The city initially paid $1,000 towards her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for two years, but after that, she was required to cover the entire amount herself.

Stanley filed a lawsuit based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that the city discriminated against her due to her disability. She is seeking for the city to continue subsidizing $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she reaches age 65.

Nonetheless, a federal appeals court determined that the ADA does not protect former employees.

According to the ADA, coverage extends to individuals who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position.” The city argues that since Stanley is unable to fulfill the essential functions of her job, she is no longer eligible for these protections.

Stanley’s attorneys contend that she was still considered an employee when her benefits were diminished in 2003, thus falling under the law’s coverage.

Deepak Gupta, Stanley’s lawyer, stated that this approach is the simplest way to resolve the case.

The justices could, if they choose, decide with Stanley that the entire statute is clearer when retirees are viewed as protected under it, Gupta added.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed to support this idea, remarking, “It seems a bit strange to tackle this larger, overarching question… when it’s not relevant to this individual.”

While the court’s decision will focus on whether Stanley has the right to file a claim, not on whether she is likely to prevail, Justice Samuel Alito expressed interest in investigating actual discrimination, saying, “I want to understand the direction of this.”

Gupta, representing Stanley, pointed out that the city specifically targeted individuals with disabilities when they altered the benefits, acting “solely because of their disabilities.”

In response, the city claimed that despite Stanley’s benefit reductions, she ultimately received better treatment than nondisabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service, as she kept the two-year subsidy.

The Justice Department did not take a stance on whether the city improperly adjusted benefits for disabled retirees. Liu emphasized that the law permits Stanley the opportunity to present her case without hindering others from addressing broader protection claims in the future.

A ruling in the case, Stanley v. City of Sanford, is anticipated by summer.