logo
#

Latest news with #Stanley

Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination
Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination

Boston Globe

time3 hours ago

  • Health
  • Boston Globe

Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination

Advertisement In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Advertisement Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando. When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees -- those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage. After nearly two decades, Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the ADA by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city's policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability. A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the ADA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed. One section of the ADA specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees. Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created 'a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.' Advertisement In her dissent, Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a 'legislative intervention' to shield other disabled retirees. This article originally appeared in

Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for health benefits discrimination
Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for health benefits discrimination

USA Today

time6 hours ago

  • Politics
  • USA Today

Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for health benefits discrimination

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees, a decision that failed to give the same ADA protections to retirees that current employees have. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone claiming discrimination under the ADA must prove that she held, or wanted, a job that she was able to perform at the time of the alleged discrimination. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination," he wrote. "And the statute tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." If Congress wants to expand the law to protect retirees like Stanley, it can, he continued. "But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one," he wrote. 'Essential building blocks of the American dream' In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said retirement benefits are 'essential building blocks of the American dream.' 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' she wrote in the dissent that was joined in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'It is lamentable that this Court so diminishes disability rights that the People (through their elected representatives) established more than three decades ago.' Jackson said Congress could step in 'to fix the mistake the Court has made.' The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.

Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for discrimination over health benefits
Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for discrimination over health benefits

USA Today

time8 hours ago

  • Health
  • USA Today

Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for discrimination over health benefits

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.

This is how long you should keep your reusable water bottle for
This is how long you should keep your reusable water bottle for

Metro

time8 hours ago

  • General
  • Metro

This is how long you should keep your reusable water bottle for

Do you know exactly when to get rid of your reusable water bottle? No, they won't stay perfect forever. It seems like everyone you encounter has a form of reusable drinkware these days, whether it be a Chilly's bottle, a Hydro Flask, or a Stanley cup – some own more than one. In fact, in 2015, just 20% of people in the UK owned a reusable water bottle, with figures from Refill estimated to have risen to 60% in 2023. Basically, it's a booming business, with the European refillable bottle market estimated to rise 40% on £1.5billion by 2028. So, while reusable bottles aren't disappearing anytime soon, it's important to know how to take care of them if you have one, especially when your health – and life – is at risk. A Taiwanese man ended up with lead poisoning from using a metal bottle for too long. Ultimately, he developed pneumonia, a serious lung condition, and later died. As reported by local media, the unnamed individual had been enduring health problems for a year before blood tests confirmed the lead poisoning. The high levels of toxins in his blood prompted an investigation, with medics informed that he had used the same thermos every day for 10 years. Upon inspecting it, they saw the lining beginning to corrode, plus signs of rust, perhaps caused by the acidic fizzy drinks he often put inside it. While it's unknown exactly when the bottle's wear and tear might have started to affect him, it's believed that, by the time he sought help, it was already too late. As such, experts are issuing warnings to those with reusable bottles to prevent tragedy. Metal water bottles are the most common, which is great because they are durable, hygienic, and reduce plastic waste. They also have a long lifespan with no hard expiration date. However, if you start to notice cracks, dents, or scratches, particularly in or around the seal, it's probably time to replace it. It is estimated that a stainless steel bottle can last up to 12 years, thanks to its sturdiness and ability to withstand direct sunlight. These warnings include ensuring that your drinking bottles are made of high-quality, food-grade materials, such as 304 stainless steel. It is also not advised to store acidic or carbonated beverages in them, including fizzy drinks and fruit juice. It starts to smell It becomes cracked, dented, or scratched In or around the lid or seal is damaged or discoloured in any way Janilyn Hutchings, a certified professional in food safety at StateFoodSafety, explained to Delish last year: 'This might seem obvious, but reusable water bottles don't last forever. Over time, water, and especially more acidic drinks like lemonade, slowly break down the material your bottle is made of.' She added: 'If you are cleaning or sanitising your water bottle using methods that are not approved for that material or water bottle that you're working with, that means that you can accidentally be doing damage to the structural integrity of that bottle.' So, while a bottle can last for several years if properly cared for, experts suggest discarding it after two to three years if you use it constantly. In the meantime, you must clean your bottles regularly – and here's how. Simply rinsing your bottle with cold water after use isn't enough to eradicate the build-up of bacteria, which then comes back into contact with your mouth. It's recommended to clean your reusable bottle with hot water (over 60 degrees Celsius) and swirl washing up liquid around it. Leave the bottle for 10 minutes to soak before rinsing thoroughly with hot water again. This is your best chance of killing off all pathogens. More Trending Since bacteria thrive in warm, moist environments, you should allow your bottle to air dry completely before using it. Finally, wash your hands before touching your squeaky clean bottle again. Repeat this cleaning process at most after each use. At the very least, do it a few times per week, especially if you're using the bottle daily. View More » Another thing to remember is that you definitely shouldn't wait until your bottle develops a bit of a stench before cleaning it. That's a telltale sign that it belongs in the bin! MORE: The UK is now 20 times more likely to see a 40°C summer MORE: England faces 5,000,000,000-litre water shortage every day by 2055 MORE: Lost world discovered beneath ice in Antarctica after 34,000,000 years Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.

Quaint UK town hiding ‘Disney for history buffs' attraction that's loved by Countryfile star
Quaint UK town hiding ‘Disney for history buffs' attraction that's loved by Countryfile star

The Sun

time13 hours ago

  • Entertainment
  • The Sun

Quaint UK town hiding ‘Disney for history buffs' attraction that's loved by Countryfile star

AN unusual attraction that is a "Disney for history lovers" has been raved about by a Countryfile star. Matt Baker, currently appearing in Matt Baker's British Isles, has confessed that he's a huge fan of the 'living museum of the North'. 5 5 When Sun Travel asked Matt Baker where he'd recommend anyone to visit on a trip to Durham, he simply answered "Beamish". He continued: "It's the best open air museum in the world, without question. "Basically what they do is take down buildings in the North East and put them back up at Beamish, and go around on all old trams, there's old villages, farms - you can even stay there now and have a historic stay over at Beamish. "It's amazing, it's basically the North East through the ages and you can spend days there." Beamish is a world famous open air museum in the town of Stanely and the first of its kind to open in the region. It brings the history of North East England to life. You can have a Georgian experience at Pockerly Old Hall or see how families lived and worked in the years leading up to the First World War in the 1900s. One of the recent installations was Spain's Field Farm which stood for centuries in Eastgate near Weardale in Durham. It was then dismantled and transported to the museum, where it was been carefully rebuilt to show 1950s life on the region's upland farms. In 2024 Beamish opened a new 1950s town, which includes a toy shop, welfare hall and a cinema that had been taken from Ryhope in Sunderland and rebuilt. There's also a pub, a school, a dentist among its businesses and you can ride on the trams and buses, and explore the railway station too. Matt Baker Explores the British Isles 5 Matt added: "There's loads of exhibitions and shops, you can have coal-fired fish and chips, it's the most brilliant day out." "It's like Disney World for history buffs - that's the only way I can describe it. You get transported back in time, it's a proper immersive experience." You can even see Matt on a trip to the living museum if you catch up on one of his previous shows. He told us: "I did a series called 'Travels with Mum & Dad' and we went all over the North East, so if you are fascinated and want to find out more watch that because we went to Beamish." 5 Tickets to the open air museum are unlimited passes so once you've been once, you can visit for the whole year including daytime events. Adult tickets cost £33, senior and student tickets cost £25, children between 5-16 are £20. As for other places to explore around his stomping ground, Matt recommended Durham Cathedral and the High Force waterfall in Teesdale. He also suggested taking a walk in the Durham Dales and strolling along the coastline. Currently the Countryfile star is on an adventure through the British Isles showing off what the UK has to offer. He's found beautiful beaches on the Northern Irish coastline and discovered tasty sparkling wine at a Champagne-worthy vineyard in Kent. Watch the final episode Matt Baker's British Isles on Tuesday 24, at 9pm on More4. Catch up on all previous episodes on This European city has the world's oldest living museum and £2 local beers. And this retro UK tourist 'town' is where Peaky Blinders was filmed and you can live a 1920s life.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store