A retiree was barred by the Supreme Court from suing over retirement health benefits for alleged discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In the court’s June 20 ruling in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “judicial innovations” extending anti-discrimination protections to retirees “might ‘create perverse incentives’ by encouraging employers to reduce retirement health care benefits for people with disabilities.”
This possibility “underscores why Congress’ decision to limit the scope of Title I’s anti-discrimination provision is not necessarily at war with the ADA’s broader aims,” Gorsuch wrote. Title I prohibits employment discrimination against qualified people with disabilities.
“Nor, of course, do the law’s present limitations preclude future legislation from going further. If Congress wishes to extend Title I to reach retirees like [the plaintiff], it can,” the court said. “But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one.”
“This decision will reduce litigation risk under the ADA when employers make changes to their retiree health benefit offerings,” said Caroline Pieper, an attorney with Seyfarth in Chicago. “The court held that the ADA only protects active employees and job applicants, not retirees.”
In Part III of the opinion, which was agreed to by four of the nine justices, Gorsuch wrote that an ADA anti-discrimination claim nonetheless “may be available to others...
USCellular urged the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday to uphold a D.C. Circuit ruling that dismissed whistleblowers’ False Claims Act (FCA) claims alleging spectrum auction fraud, branding their reque...