What happens when a worker with a disability retires and then faces discrimination in the benefits they were promised? That was the question at the heart of Stanley v. City of Sanford, a case that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court this year. The answer the Court gave was disappointing: under federal law, workers with disabilities lose protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) once they fully retire.
It’s a narrow interpretation with sweeping consequences, and it sends the wrong message about fairness, dignity, and how we value disabled people in the workplace and beyond.
What was the Stanley v. City of Sanford Case About?
This case asked whether the ADA protects retirees with disabilities from being treated unfairly in retirement benefits simply because of their disability.
What Are the Facts of the Case?
Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for nearly two decades in Sanford, Florida. In 2016, she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological condition that caused physical disabilities. Two years later, she made the difficult decision to retire before age 65.
At the time she was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for two groups: those who worked 25 years or more and those who retired earlier due to a disability. But in 2003, the City changed the policy. Now, retirees with disabilities would only get 24 months of health insurance, far less than their nondisabled coworkers who stayed longer.
Ms. Stanley sued, arguing that this unequal treatment was disability discrimination under the ADA.
The U.S. District Court dismissed Ms. Stanley’s lawsuit, explaining that the ADA only protects current employees or those looking for work, not fully retired workers like Ms. Stanley. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with this decision. Ms. Stanley then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, saying that the ADA does not protect against discrimination in retirement benefits for people with disabilities. This means that the ADA only covers people with disabilities who either actively have a job or are looking for work. Since Ms. Stanley was retired from her job and not actively looking for a job, she no longer counted as a “qualified” individual under the ADA.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing:
“Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination… Yet, the Court ignores that right today… Americans with disabilities have proven time and again that they can overcome long odds in fighting for their own equality. When that happens, my one wish would be for this Court to stay out of their way.”
The Arc’s Position
The Arc believes people with disabilities should be able to retire with dignity and security. The ADA was meant to eliminate disability discrimination in all areas of life, including employment. Employers should not be paying people with disabilities less or offering them worse benefits than their non-disabled employees. Our position statement on human and civil rights states that federal laws like the ADA must be protected and vigorously enforced. Our position statement on employment states that people with disabilities should have “fair and reasonable wages and benefits.” Furthermore, our position statement on aging states that people with disabilities should have “access to financial support that will provide them with retirement opportunities like those available to other older people who no longer work.”
How Does This Decision Impact People with Disabilities?
This ruling creates a dangerous gap in disability rights protections. Employers may now be free to cut benefits or discriminate against disabled workers after they retire with little to no legal consequence under the ADA.
For people with disabilities, retirement is often not just a life choice; it’s a medical necessity. And yet, this decision makes it easier for employers to deny them the very benefits they earned.
The National Disability Rights Network and other disability rights organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Stanley, explaining that if the Court does not protect against discrimination in retirement benefits “the ADA’s protections against discrimination mean the least when they are needed the most — when workers with disabilities have lost their jobs. . . these workers should not be denied access to post-employed benefits that nondisabled workers enjoy. Nothing in the ADA requires this perverse result.”
While it may still be possible for some retirees with disabilities to challenge discrimination if they are actively looking for work, the ADA will no longer protect people in situations like Ms. Stanley’s.
What’s Next?
This decision narrows the reach of one of the most important civil rights laws for people with disabilities. It’s a setback, but it’s not the end. Disability rights organizations, including The Arc, will continue fighting to ensure that laws like the ADA are interpreted in ways that reflect their original purpose: to protect against discrimination and uphold the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all areas of life.