January 13, 2025
SCOTUS, ADA & the Space-Time Continuum
Whether you are a Star Trek fan of any generation or not, I find the question in a case the U.S. Supreme has agreed to hear interesting. We know the ADA covers current employees and job applicants – individuals who work for us or want to work for us. But may a former employee with a disability file a claim of discrimination based on a policy the employer changed while the person was employed and not disabled but that affected her after she retired due to disability?
While employed, the employer covered just over 75% of employees’ monthly medical insurance premium and would continue to do so until age 65 for those who retired after 25 years on the job or because of a disability. The employer subsequently changed that policy to continue coverage for those who retire because of a disability for only the longer of 24 months or until they were eligible for Medicare.
When the policy changed, the employee was employed and not disabled. Thirteen years later, she developed Parkinson’s disease and retired due to disability two years after that. When her coverage ended 24 months after that, she sued. Her case was dismissed by the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. But SCOTUS has agreed to and is hearing this case today!
It is an interesting perspective. The employee would not have had standing to sue when the policy changed because she was not a person with a disability. But would any former employee with a disability have standing to sue after the employee retired and was then adversely impacted by the policy?
The 11th Circuit ruled against the employee explaining, “because Plaintiff cannot establish that the City committed any discriminatory acts against her while she could perform the essential functions of a job that she held or desired to hold, her Title I claim fails.”
Stay tuned for SCOTUS’ answer as to whether “a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.”