Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up the stage in the Broadway musical “& Juliet”
Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson treated “&Juliet” fans with special performances only one night!
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wanted to sue his former employer to reduce medical benefits for disabled retirees.
The court ruled that Karin Stanley cannot sue the city of Sanford, Florida under the Disability Persons Act.
The ADA upheld a lower court ruling that he did not apply to Stanley as she no longer worked in the city when she submitted the challenge.
Writing for the majority, Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone who claims discrimination under the ADA must prove that she was or wanted to do the job she played when she was a suspect.
“In other words, the law protects people, not profiting from discrimination,” he wrote. “And this law tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek jobs at the time of alleged discrimination of the defendant.”
If Congress wants to expand the law to protect retirees like Stanley, that can be done, he continued.
“But the decision to do so or not lie in this body, not in this body,” he wrote.
“The Essential Building Blocks of the American Dream”
In dissent, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said retirement benefits were “an important building block of America’s dream.”
“Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of labor that are free from discrimination,” she wrote in her dissent, adding in part to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s participation. “It is saddened that this court was established over 30 years ago (through elected representatives) because it has greatly reduced the rights of people with disabilities.”
Jackson said Congress could intervene “to correct any mistakes made by the court.”
The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job seekers from discrimination. It was not intended as a law extending to the employer’s relationship with former employees. Business groups and associations representing cities and counties allegedly claimed in Stanley’s allegations.
The law is intended for those who “can perform the essential functions of the employment position held or desired by such individuals, with or without reasonable accommodation.”
Stanley’s lawyers allege that she is employed and therefore covered by law – when her future profits were cut in 2003.
When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid health insurance a premium of about $1,000 a month. Those who retire after 25 years of work or due to disability will continue to receive benefits until age 65.
Stanley found that in 2003, the profits of disabled retirees had decreased after leaving the department to 47 in 2018 due to Parkinson’s disease.
The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premiums in just two years, and then she had to pay the entire premium herself.
Stanley sued, claiming that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, asking the city to pay her monthly premium of $1,000 until she turns 65.
The city has never been worse than non-disabled employees who have retired after working less than 25 years, despite Stanley’s profits declined.
The case is Stanley V. It’s Stanford city.
