NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford

COUNTY NEXUS

Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees. 

BACKGROUND

This case involves a former firefighter who retired for a qualified disability reason after nearly 20 years of service. Far in advance of her retirement, the city updated its benefits policy to reduce the length of free health coverage available to disability retirees. The former employee sued, arguing that the city’s policy reduction of the health insurance subsidy discriminated against her disability under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). In taking the case, the Court will resolve a circuit split over the question of whether a former employee has status under the ADA as a “qualified individual with a disability” and can therefore bring suit for discrimination in post-employment distribution of fringe benefits. 

NACo ADVOCACY

In a Local Government Legal Center amicus brief submitted in support of the respondent, NACo argues that former employees do not have status as qualified individuals under the ADA. As local governments are looking for cost-saving mechanisms to balance budgets, some may need to cut costs by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees. Furthermore, preserving the flexibility of county governments to make tough choices about fringe benefits without the threat of litigation will not preclude individuals from filing retaliation  claims involving post-employment actions, which do not hinge on the “qualified individual” requirement. 

CURRENT STATUS

On June 20, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling affirming the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that Stanley cannot challenge the termination of her health insurance after she retired, citing the LGLC amicus brief in its opinion. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), plaintiffs must plead or prove they held or desired a job they could perform at the time of the employer’s alleged act of discrimination and since Stanley neither held or desired a position with the City when it ended her retirement benefits she is therefore not entitled to bring a claim under ADA. This ruling is a win for counties as retain the ability to change post-retirement health benefits without significant risk of liability.