US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits

By Daniel Wiessner
(Reuters) -Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits.
The ruling upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability.
"In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote.
Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions.
While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working.
Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service.
The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits.
Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city.
While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired.
Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers.
"While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBS News

30 minutes ago

• CBS News

Judge orders Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release before trial, but he will likely be detained by ICE

A Tennessee judge on Sunday ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Trump's immigration crackdown, while he awaits a federal trial on human smuggling charges. But he is not expected to be allowed to go free. At his June 13 detention hearing, prosecutors said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would take Abrego Garcia into custody if he were released on the criminal charges, and he could be deported before he has a chance to stand trial. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of Abrego Garcia's release. The U.S. government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge's release order. Holmes acknowledged in her ruling Sunday that determining whether Abrego Garcia should be released is "little more than an academic exercise" because ICE will likely detain him. But the judge wrote that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and "a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial." Holmes wrote that the government failed to prove that Abrego was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released. "Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego's release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community," the judge wrote. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify the deportation mistake after the fact. The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on June 13 that the likely attempt by ICE to try to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail. But Holmes said then that she had no intention of "getting in the middle of any ICE hold." "If I elect to release Mr. Abrego, I will impose conditions of release, and the U.S. Marshal will release him." If he is released into ICE custody, that is "above my pay grade," she said. The judge suggested that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government's priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial. Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing Abrego Garcia at the detention hearing, told Holmes that "it's not necessarily accurate that he would be immediately deported." A 2019 immigration judge's order prevents Abrego Garcia, who had been living in Maryland, from being deported to his home country of El Salvador, Allensworth said in court. That's because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to court papers. The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that third country was willing to keep him and not simply deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said. The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go on his way with only a warning. At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Abrego Garcia of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed Abrego Garcia to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have characterized the smuggling case as a desperate attempt to justify the mistaken deportation. The investigation was launched weeks after the U.S. government deported Abrego Garcia and the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return amid mounting public pressure. Chris Newman, an attorney who represents Abrego Garcia's family, previously told CBS News, "The Trump administration is very invested in making this a referendum on the immigration debate, which, as you know, has become coarsened and polarized." "And that is one way to look at it. And I think certainly a lot of people view it that way. I don't view it that way. I view this as a core constitutional order case, a core due process case," Newman said. "And it just so happens that a Salvadoran immigrant is defending bedrock constitutional protections for all of us." Most people in ICE custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the U.S. for trial but deported, Ohio State University law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández said. The U.S. will likely try to deport Abrego Garcia quickly without going before an immigration judge, the professor said. The government would not need a conviction to deport him because Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. illegally. "The legal standard is laxer," García Hernández said. "The government's argument is on stronger legal footing." However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board's ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.

Yahoo

35 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Oil hits five-month high after US hits key Iranian nuclear sites

SINGAPORE (Reuters) -Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as Washington's weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities stoked supply worries. Brent crude futures rose $1.88 or 2.44% at $78.89 a barrel as of 1122 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.87 or 2.53% at $75.71. Both contracts jumped by more than 3% earlier in the session to $81.40 and $78.40, respectively, five-month highs, before giving up some gains. The rise in prices came after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows. Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on the move. "The risks of damage to oil infrastructure ... have multiplied," said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh. Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volumes that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added. Brent has risen 13% since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10%. The current geopolitical risk premium is unlikely to last without tangible supply disruptions, analysts said. Meanwhile, the unwinding of some of the long positions accumulated following a recent price rally could cap an upside to oil prices, Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a market commentary on Sunday.

Washington Post

42 minutes ago

• Washington Post

White House releases Situation Room photos from when U.S. struck Iran sites

After President Donald Trump launched the first significant U.S. military strike on Iranian soil since the 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-backed shah of Iran, the White House late Saturday released its photos of the president and his top advisers conferring in the Situation Room. The scenes were captured in the windowless room where top-secret operations are discussed and monitored. The White House photos showed Trump, wearing a MAGA hat, at the head of the table, surrounded by advisers including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.