June 20, 2025
SCOTUS Affirms Retiree May Not Have Standing to Sue Under the ADA
May a former employee file a claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 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? The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the District Court and 11th U.S. Circuit Cout of Appeals that held, “No.” Here’s the scoop.
At the time the City of Sanford, Florida hired the plaintiff, it offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees: those who retired with 25 years of service, and those who retired earlier because of a disability. During the plaintiff’s employment, the City changed its policy. Going forward, it would continue to pay for health insurance up to age 65 for retirees with 25 years of service. But for those who retired earlier due to disability, the City would provide health insurance for up to 24 months. After the City revised its policy, the plaintiff began to suffer from a disability and retired after 19 years of service, entitling her to up to 24 months of health insurance. The former employee, now a retiree, then brought suit claiming that the City violated Title I of the ADA by providing different health-insurance benefits to those who retire with 25 years of service and those who retire earlier due to disability. Title I prohibits discrimination in compensation and employment conditions against “qualified individuals” with disabilities.
SCOTUS wrote, “The question before us concerns whether a retired employee who does not hold or seek a job is a ‘qualified individual’…A “qualified individual” is someone ‘who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that [she] holds or desires.’ Congress’s use of present-tense verbs (“holds,” “desires,” “can perform”) signals that [the ADA] protects individuals able to do the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer discrimination, not retirees who neither hold nor desire a job.”
So, the case was really about standing. A retiree cannot bring an ADA discrimination claim against an employer related to eligibility for certain post-employment benefits if they neither hold a job with the employer nor are they seeking one.
But what about the question of whether offering health-insurance benefits to those who retire with 25 years of service for a longer period of time than for those who retire earlier due to disability constitutes discrimination under the ADA? Ask your company’s legal counsel! As SCOTUS notes, retirees may have legal remedies under other federal or state laws.
