Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Retirees Lose ADA Benefits Rights

Sanford, Florida, USA - In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that retirees cannot sue for benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an outcome that echoes throughout the legal community, especially with implications for those relying on post-retirement benefits. On June 20, 2025, justices handed down an 8-1 verdict in the case involving Karyn Stanley, a former firefighter from Sanford, Florida, which could reshape ADA protections for retirees.

Karyn Stanley, who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and subsequently took disability retirement in 2018, found herself in a battle with the city over health insurance benefits. Under the city’s old policy, retirees like Stanley could expect 75% of their medical insurance premiums covered until age 65. However, a 2003 policy change limited this coverage to just two years post-retirement for those who left due to disability. Frustrated by this shift, Stanley sued the city, claiming discrimination based on her disability. Yet, the court concluded that retirees do not count as „qualified persons“ under the ADA since they cannot perform job functions at the time of alleged discrimination, as reported by Jurist.

The Ruling’s Implications

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, took a straightforward stance: the ADA is designed to protect people, not benefits. He noted that the ADA applicability hinges on whether individuals can perform essential job functions at the time discrimination is claimed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, argued against this interpretation, emphasizing that retirement benefits are crucial and claiming it illogical for protections to vanish upon retirement. Jackson indicated that retired employees should still have a voice in discrimination matters pertaining to their benefits.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Stanley’s case. With the Biden administration backing Stanley, arguing that ADA protections should cover accrued benefits and address discrimination that may surface post-retirement, there’s a pressing need to reassess the boundaries of the ADA. The ruling may deter retirees from contesting discrimination, as legal grounds seem shaky under this newfound interpretation, thereby raising concerns about fairness in retirement benefits. As the LawRota notes, a key consideration before the Supreme Court was whether former employees could challenge post-employment discrimination under the ADA.

What’s Next?

The Court has made it clear that retirees have limited recourse. The ruling also leaves open some questions. As detailed by Gibson Dunn, while the decision allows for potential claims by employees who were “qualified” when discriminatory policies were adopted, the inability for retirees to pursue ADA claims could embolden employers to implement harmful policies with less fear of legal reprisal.

The legal landscape for disability rights and retirement benefits is evolving. This ruling may significantly affect not only retirees like Stanley but also the broader population of American workers. As we look towards the future, the intersection of disability rights, employment law, and retirement benefits will undoubtedly remain a hot topic, fostering discussions among advocates, lawmakers, and the community at large.