The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) covers workers that “with or without reasonable accommodation can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” But what about a former employee that is disabled and impacted by an employer’s change to benefits after the person is no longer employed?
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held that a former firefighter who was no longer employed due to having Parkinson’s Disease could not bring an ADA lawsuit based upon the rollback of post-employment health benefits. The reason SCOTUS gives is the ADA law only applies to persons that can still fulfill their job duties.
SCOTUS reasoned (by a 7-2 decision) that the plain language of the ADA clearly states the law applies only to an employee that can do the core tasks of the job “they either have or want, not one whose disability makes working impossible.”
Using a plain language of the law analysis, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the case opinion, stated that Congress’ use of present tense verbs indicates that the law covers “individuals who, with our without reasonable accommodation, are able to do the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer the discrimination.” Therefore, the Court holds that the statute does not reach retirees.
A former firefighter who retired as a lieutenant in 2018 due to progressing Parkinson’s Disease sued the city after it reduced her healthcare benefits. The city had changed the benefits it previously provided to employees who left due to a disability.
SCOTUS upheld the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on this case and resolved a conflict between Circuit Courts around the country.
Two SCOTUS justices dissented arguing SCOTUS took too narrow a view of the ADA’s reach, but Justice Gorsuch held that if Congress had wanted coverage of the ADA to cover retirees they would have stated so in the law. “But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one.”
The way this decision went may have been based more on the way the case was brought. Gorsuch pointed out in the opinion that other legal pathways could have been taken to bring a valid ADA claim. He even went so far as to suggest the Plaintiff should have argued she was a qualified individual under the ADA during the two-year time period in which she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s but still employed.
This leaves the door open for future plaintiffs and as Gorsuch stated, the decision does not “prevent plaintiffs – or perhaps even Ms. Stanley herself in a future proceeding – from pursuing a theory along the lines the government proposes.” In this case, the federal government filed an amicus brief supporting the Plaintiff.
Source: Law360 Employment Authority. Justices Say ADA Doesn’t Cover Retirees Who Can’t Work. (6/20/2025)