Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, starting in 1999. When Ms. Stanley was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees: those with 25 years of service and those who retired earlier due to disability. In 2003, the City changed its policy to provide health insurance up to age 65 only for retirees with 25 years of service, while those who retired earlier due to disability would receive just 24 months of coverage. Ms. Stanley later developed a disability that forced her to retire in 2018, entitling her to only 24 months of health insurance under the revised policy. Ms. Stanley sued, claiming the City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing different health-insurance benefits to those who retire with 25 years of service and those who retire due to disability. The district court dismissed her ADA claim, reasoning that the alleged discrimination occurred after she retired, when she was not a “qualified individual” under Title I of the ADA, 42 U. S. C. §12112(a), because she no longer held or sought a job with the defendant. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. 83 F. 4th 1333, affirmed.
JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, concluding that, to prevail under §12112(a), a plaintiff must plead and prove that she held or desired a job, and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination. Pp. 4–11.
(a) Section 12112(a) makes it unlawful for a covered employer to discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to compensation. The parties agree that retirement benefits qualify as “compensation” and assume the City’s policy revision constituted disability-based discrimination. The disagreement centers on whether §12112(a) addresses discrimination against retirees.
(b) A “qualified individual” is someone “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that [she] holds or desires.” §12111(8). Congress’s use of present-tense verbs (“holds,” “desires,” “can perform”) signals that §12112(a) protects individuals able to do the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer discrimination, not retirees who neither hold nor desire a job. The statute’s definition of “reasonable accommodation”—“job restructuring,” modifying “existing facilities used by employees,” and altering “training materials or policies,” §12111(9)—makes sense for current employees or applicants but not for retirees. Section 12112(b)’s examples of discrimination, such as “qualification standards” and “employment tests,” similarly aim to protect job holders and seekers, not retirees. Comparing Title I of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reinforces this reading. Title VII protects “employee[s],” §2000e(f), without temporal qualification, sometimes covering former employees. But where Title VII links “employee” to present-tense verbs, it refers to current employees. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 341, n. 2, 343. Similarly the ADA’s “qualified individual” yoked to present-tense verbs suggests current job holders or seekers. Court precedent supports this interpretation. In Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corporation, the Court noted that a plaintiff’s assertion she is “ ‘unable to work’ will appear to negate an essential element of her ADA case,” anticipating that someone may fall outside §12112(a)’s protections if she can “no longer do the job.” 526 U. S. 795, 799, 806. Pp. 4–7. (b) Ms. Stanley argues that §12112(a)’s “qualified individual” requirement is a conditional mandate—applicable only if a plaintiff holds or seeks a job. If neither, she contends, there are no “essential functions” to perform, making every retiree automatically “qualified.” The Court rejects this conceivable-but-convoluted interpretation in favor of the ordinary one.
Ms. Stanley’s surplusage argument—that the Court’s reading renders §12112(b)(5)(A)’s reference to “applicant or employee” meaningless—also fails. That phrase may still serve a narrowing function, and “[t]he canon against surplusage is not an absolute rule.” Marx v. General Revenue Corp.,.568 U. S. 371, 385.
Ms. Stanley argues that Title I’s broad language allowing “any person alleging discrimination” to sue makes the “qualified individual” language irrelevant. But the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination—specifically, qualified individuals.
Finally, Ms. Stanley invokes the ADA’s purpose of eradicating disability-based discrimination. She argues this goal would be best served by a judicial decision extending Title I’s protections to retirees. But “legislation [does not] pursu[e] its purposes at all costs,” Rodriguez v. United States , 480 U. S. 522, 525–526, and other laws may protect retirees from discrimination. If Congress wishes to extend Title I to retirees, it can do so. Pp. 7–11.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BARRETT, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to Parts III and IV, except for n. 12.
There are 0 comments