Retirees Are Not Considered "Qualified Individuals" For Purposes of the ADA

On June 20, 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, clarifying how far the protections against employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) reach when employers allegedly discriminate against retirees. In this case, Ms. Stanley began working for the City of Sanford in 1999, at which point in time the city offered health insurance until age 65 to retirees who either worked for 25 years or retired early due to a disability. In 2003, the city revised the length of health insurance it offered to retirees who left due to a disability; they would now receive only a maximum of two years of health insurance. Although Stanley planned to work for the full 25 years, a disability first diagnosed in 2016 forced her to retire two years later, meaning that she would only receive up to two years of health insurance. Stanley subsequently brought a suit against the city claiming that, by providing her with lesser benefits than non-disabled retirees, her former employer discriminated against her after she became a retiree.

In ruling that the ADA does not protect Stanley or other retirees, the Court relied heavily on a provision in the ADA stating that the statute only protects “qualified individuals,” defined as those who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” As per the Court, since the ADA defines qualified individuals in the present-tense, the protections only apply to those who, with or without accommodations, can perform the essential functions of the job they hold or desire at the time they suffer discrimination. In Stanley’s case the discrimination, based on her complaint, only occurred after she retired because of her inability to continue performing the essential functions of her job. Accordingly, this meant she was no longer a qualified individual and was therefore not protected by the ADA.

While at first glance the ruling seems to suggest that employers are free to discriminate against disabled retirees, such as by canceling their benefits, in reality the opinion does not encourage such action. The Justices acknowledged that plaintiffs like Stanley could still bring a suit under the ADA if they alleged they were subject to the discriminatory policy at any point in which they were a qualified individual. Stanley’s suit could not succeed based on a technicality, she never claimed she suffered discrimination while on the job as a qualified individual, though she easily could have based on her continued two years of work after her diagnosis. The Justices further pointed out that many other state and federal laws could act to protect retirees who would no longer be qualified individuals pursuant the ADA. In all, employers should understand Stanley as a clarification of the ADA’s requirement that one must be a qualified individual in order to be protected by the statute.

For questions about the foregoing or any other labor and employment law topic, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Hoffman & Hlavac. To stay updated on key labor and employment law developments that affect your workplace, be sure to subscribe to our blog.