The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a Sanford firefighter who retired due to Parkinson’s disease can file a discrimination lawsuit after the city cut his disability benefits.
“I want justice not only for myself, but for the countless disabled firefighters across the country and other disabled workers who are entitled to receive retirement benefits without discrimination,” retired firefighter Karin Stanley said in a text message provided to the Orlando Sentinel by her Lake Mary attorney, Patricia Sigman.
This is an issue that affects millions of disabled people who rely on benefits from their former employers, as well as millions of future employees who will become disabled, Stanley’s lawyers said in a petition filed with the Supreme Court in March asking that it hear the case. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case on Monday.
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October that Stanley could not sue Sanford under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the loss of his health insurance subsidies because he is no longer a city employee. Three other U.S. circuits have made similar rulings in similar cases brought by former city employees alleging retirement protections and discrimination.
However, decisions from two other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled in favor of employees, finding that the ADA’s requirements are vague and that the law was enacted to protect workers.
Stanley has asked the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute during its next session, which begins Oct. 7. The case is Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida.
She was hired as a city firefighter in February 1999 and worked her way up to the rank of lieutenant over the years.
In 2016 she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. She continued to work as a firefighter for two years, but the disease and resulting disability made it impossible for her to continue working.
Governor DeSantis tries to hide public records about migrant flights; court denies it | Commentary
She retired in November 2018 at age 47. As part of the city’s disability pension plan, Stanley received a monthly benefit of about $1,000 and the city paid her health insurance premiums.
What Stanley didn’t know was that in 2003, the city made changes to its disability retiree benefits system while undergoing budget cuts during a tough fiscal year.
Under the revised plan, disabled retirees would receive health insurance for two years after they leave the city. After that, former employees would be responsible for their own health insurance and medical costs. Sanford employees could retire with full benefits after 25 years of service, but Stanley only had 20.
Stanley filed the lawsuit in April 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando, eight months before his disability benefits were terminated.
Her lawsuit alleges that Sanford violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by changing its benefits system. In effect, she claims, the city’s decision to cut her health insurance subsidies discriminated against her as a disabled retiree.
“The reductions in City health insurance subsidies will not be applied equally to non-disabled retirees, who will continue to receive City health insurance subsidies until age 65,” Sigman said in court documents.
Her lawyers added that the city’s “discriminatory benefits policies clearly treat retirees with disabilities less unfairly than others.”
Lower court and appeals court judges disagreed, tossing the case, saying she couldn’t sue the city for discrimination because she was no longer an employee.
“Because the ADA prohibits discrimination only against individuals who hold or seek employment, the former employees reasoned that they could not sue under the ADA,” the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Jessica Conner, an Orlando attorney representing city officials and Mr. Sanford, declined to comment.
But Connor argued last month in a court filing opposing Stanley’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that the former firefighter doesn’t fully qualify for the benefits.
“Had she worked for 25 years, she would have been eligible for benefits regardless of disability,” the lawsuit states. “While the reasons for her early retirement are certainly tragic, we cannot say that the denial of benefits up to age 65 was illegal or unreasonable.”
“Even non-disabled retirees with only 20 years of service could not receive subsidies until age 65, no matter how unfortunate their reasons for early retirement. [Stanley] They were treated better than non-disabled retirees with the same hours worked because they received no subsidies at all. [Stanley] She received the grant for 24 months out of compassion for her disability.”
City officials said Tuesday that Stanley still receives retirement benefits from the Firefighters’ Pension System but did not provide details.
Stanley did not return calls seeking comment but responded through a text message sent by his lawyer.
“I hope the court will rule so that people like me don’t lose the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act simply because I leave my job,” Stanley said in a text message.