Stanley v. City of Sanford
| Stanley v. City of Sanford | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 13, 2025 Decided June 20, 2025 | |
| Full case name | Karyn D. Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida |
| Docket no. | 23-997 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior |
|
| Questions presented | |
| 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? | |
| Holding | |
| Only individuals who “hold” or “desire” a position are considered “qualified individuals” under Title I of the ADA. Therefore, once an employee retires, they no longer meet this definition and cannot bring a discrimination claim regarding benefit changes. As a result, the court dismissed the suit challenging cuts to post-employment benefits. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Gorsuch (Parts I, II), joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
| Plurality | Gorsuch (Parts III), joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in part and in judgement), joined by Barrett |
| Concur/dissent | Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Jackson, joined by Sotomayor (Parts III, IV, except footnote 12) |
| Laws applied | |
| Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 | |
Stanley v. City of Sanford, 606 U.S. 46 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court decision clarifying the scope of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court held that the Act’s antidiscrimination provision applies only to “qualified individuals”—those who, at the time of the challenged actions, “hold” or “desire” an employment position and can perform its essential functions (with or without reasonable accommodation). Karyn Stanley, a firefighter who retired early due to disability and subsequently received reduced post-employment health-insurance benefits, sued the City of Sanford under § 12112(a) of the ADA; the lower courts dismissed her claim on the ground that, having neither held nor sought her position at the time of the benefit change, she was no longer a “qualified individual” entitled to Title I’s protections . The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that retirees who do not hold or seek their former jobs lack standing to sue under Title I for discrimination in post-employment benefits.