Supreme Court's Ruling Strips Disability Benefits for Retired Workers

Sanford, Florida, USA - The recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding disability rights has stirred a considerable amount of concern, particularly among advocates for the disabled community. On June 20, 2025, the Court delivered its opinion in the case of Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, a decision that has been described as a significant setback for protections under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court’s ruling stated that former public employees like Karyn Stanley are not entitled to continue receiving disability-related benefits after their employment has ended reports the National Council of Jewish Women.

Karyn Stanley, a retired firefighter diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, took disability retirement in 2018 after nearly two decades of service. She was initially given a health insurance subsidy but found herself facing rising costs when the city of Sanford changed its policy in 2003. This led her to sue the city, arguing she deserved continued health benefits, but the Supreme Court ruled against her, stating she did not have the standing to sue under the ADA because she was not employed at the time of her claim according to Bloomberg Law.

Implications for Disability Rights

The majority opinion, penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, explained that the ADA only protects individuals who are currently employed or actively looking for work. This interpretation has raised alarms among disability rights advocates, who fear it undermines essential protections established for disabled workers and may affect healthcare access for retirees as noted by USA Today.

The National Council of Jewish Women expressed disappointment with the ruling, emphasizing the need to uphold protections for vulnerable populations, including those with disabilities and aging Americans. The organization—representing over 250,000 advocates—has a long-standing history of pushing for ADA protections and is worried that the ruling represents a dangerous precedent.

A Divided Court

The case was notably contentious, with a notable dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that retirement benefits are integral to the well-being of disabled Americans and that all aspects of employment should be protected under the ADA, including post-employment benefits. Her dissent was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, highlighting a significant divide within the Court regarding the interpretation of the law Bloomberg Law reported.

Meanwhile, the majority opinion pointedly refused to endorse an alternative argument presented by Stanley’s team regarding discrimination occurring while she was still employed. Justices Gorsuch and others maintained that the employees’ rights under the ADA do not extend beyond the period of active employment.

The Road Ahead

This ruling raises serious questions about the future of disability rights in America. Critics fear that without Congressional action to amend the ADA, vulnerable workers—especially retirees—may find their rights eroded further. The decision underscores a critical need for continued advocacy to ensure that all Americans, regardless of employment status, maintain access to fair health benefits. The National Council of Jewish Women and other organizations will likely ramp up their efforts to protect the rights of those they serve as they navigate this new legal landscape.

The implications of this ruling reach far beyond Karyn Stanley’s case; they signal a potentially troubling trend in how disability rights are viewed in America today. As advocates continue to fight for comprehensive protections, the conversation around these issues is more vital than ever.