A firefighter with Parkinson’s lost her health benefits. Supreme Court considers if she can sue
The Supreme Court’s ruling could impact millions of older Americans retiring due to disability, according to the AARP.
WASHINGTON – Karyn Stanley anticipated that her health insurance would mostly be funded when she retired early from firefighting in 2018, based on her job’s original provisions.
However, she found that the city of Sanford, Florida, had altered its policy regarding those who retire due to disabilities, including her debilitating Parkinson’s disease.
Instead of receiving an ongoing insurance subsidy of about $1,000 per month until she turned 65, the 47-year-old was cut off from benefits after just two years.
When Stanley attempted to sue the city using a federal law from 1990 designed to shield those with disabilities from discrimination, a federal appeals court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not protect former employees.
This upcoming Monday, the Supreme Court is set to deliberate if this interpretation is correct.
The AARP warns that the court’s decision could influence millions of older Americans who retire because of disabilities and might be denied necessary health insurance benefits.
Stanley has the support of the Justice Department, which is collaborating with her legal team during the oral arguments on Monday.
On the other hand, business groups and associations for cities and counties argue that if the Supreme Court rules in Stanley’s favor, the costs associated with offering post-employment health insurance will rise, potentially discouraging employers from providing it altogether.
They contend that the ADA was intended to protect current employees and job seekers from discrimination, not to regulate the relationship between employers and former employees.
The Social Security Administration estimates that more than one in four of today’s 20-year-olds will experience a disability before retiring.
The core legal issue revolves around how the Americans with Disabilities Act defines discrimination protection. The law is designed to protect individuals who can perform essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodations.
According to the city, since Stanley can no longer do her job’s essential functions, she is no longer eligible for protection.
Stanley’s attorneys argue that she was still employed and thus entitled to ADA protections when her benefits were reduced in 2003. They also assert that the law should be interpreted to include retirees.
“Congress never intended for this arbitrary system to exist, which allows discrimination until an employee’s last day of work—and then makes it permissible the very moment they retire,” they stated in their legal filings.
When Stanley joined the fire department in 1999, the city covered $1,000 out of her approximately $1,300 monthly health insurance premium. Employees who retired after 25 years of service or due to disability were entitled to maintain this benefit until age 65.
However, in 2003, the city cut the subsidy for disabled retirees.
Stanley’s lawyers argue this change severely affected her promised benefits. She has since been paying the full monthly premium out of her own pocket to manage her Parkinson’s condition, while other disabled retirees have had to leave the city’s insurance after losing their subsidy, her lawyers told the court.
According to the city, the 2003 policy adjustment was necessary to reduce expenses. Still, city attorneys assert that Stanley was better off compared to non-disabled retirees with fewer than 25 years of service, as she kept her subsidy for two years.
Employee compensation generally represents at least half of a local government’s budget, as noted by organizations representing municipalities in their statements to the Supreme Court.
Stanley’s expansive interpretation of whom the Americans with Disabilities Act protects “could result in an overwhelming rise in litigation and its associated costs every time budgets are adjusted,” these groups warned in their filings.
Conversely, disability rights advocates stated that the right to pursue legal action for discrimination doesn’t vanish just because the employee has retired.
These advocates argue that if this were the case, the ADA would offer minimal protection at the critical moments when employees with disabilities lose their jobs and may struggle to find new ones.
“These individuals,” the organizations indicated to the court, “should not be excluded from accessing post-employment benefits that are available to their nondisabled counterparts.”