| Litigants: | Stanley v. City of Sanford |
| Fullname: | Karyn D. Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida |
| Docket: | 23-997 |
| Questionspresented: | Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job? |
Stanley v. City of Sanford is a pending United States Supreme Court case in which the Court will determine whether or not a former employee who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[1]
Karyn D. Stanley employed as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida in 1999, where she served for fifteen years until 2016 when she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, she continued to work for two years until her physical condition left her incapable. On November 1, 2018, Stanley, took a disability retirement at the age of 47.[2]
When Stanley first joined the fire department in 1999, a policy is in effect where employees retiring for disability reasons were entitled to receive free health insurance until they were 65 years old. However, in 2003, the city changed its plan, under the new policy, retirees were entitled to receive free health insurance for twenty-four months after retiring. In the beginning of December 1, 2020, Stanley would be responsible for paying her insurance.
On April 2020, she sued the City of Sanford in the United States Middle District Court for the Middle District of Florida, arguing that, the city's benefits plan change discriminated retired employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court dismissed her claim, and granted summary judgement in favor of the city.
Stanley appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the court upheld the lower court's decision.[3]
The Court granted the certiorari, and the case will be expected to be heard in October Term 2024.[4] [5]