WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v. City of Sanford, a case in which the Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment, Constitutional Accountability Center Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

Many of the Justices at oral argument today seemed to recognize that this case presents a relatively straightforward and narrow question: whether a person who experienced disability discrimination as a “qualified individual” under Title I of the ADA may file suit for that discrimination after her employment ends. Here, during the period of time after Lt. Stanley became disabled but before she stopped working, she became subject to her employer’s retirement benefits policy that distinguished on its face between disabled and non-disabled retirees—with less favorable treatment for the former group. That is enough to resolve this case in Lt. Stanley’s favor.

However, as we explained in our amicus brief in support of Lt. Stanley, if the Court goes further and reaches the question of whether individuals can sue under Title I of the ADA for wholly post-employment discrimination against retirees on the basis of disability, the answer should be yes. The proper reading of the statute’s definition of “qualified individual,” considered in the broader context of the statutory scheme, is that it serves to protect employers who fire or refuse to hire individuals who cannot perform the essential functions of their jobs, even with a reasonable accommodation. The definition does not grant employers the right to discriminate against retirees with disabilities in a post-employment benefits policy.

CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh added this reaction:

Ruling for Stanley on the question of whether individuals can sue under the ADA for post-employment discrimination would vindicate the history of that statute. As our brief explained, Congress passed the ADA in response to social and political movements of people with disabilities seeking comprehensive protection against discrimination in the workplace. As Justice Sotomayor put it at today’s argument, the ADA was enacted to “encourage people with disabilities to enter the workforce.” Denying Lt. Stanley’s claim for the simple reason that it involves benefits distributed after retirement would clearly undermine this goal.

##