Civil Rights Clinic files brief in Supreme Court on disability rights issue

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – The Penn State Law Civil Rights Appellate Clinic filed a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief was submitted as amicus curiae in support of a petition for certiorari filed on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”) and the National Employment Law Project (“NELP”). The amicus brief is supporting Ms. Karyn D. Stanley’s petition for certiorari. A former firefighter who was forced to take disability retirement after developing Parkinson’s disease, Stanley filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after the City of Sanford terminated her medical insurance subsidy. Stanley is seeking to reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to dismiss her case.

Along with Penn State Law Professor Michael Foreman, six second- and third-year clinical students worked on the brief: Ian Cassity, Hannah Chapple, Ava McCartin, Ben Garcia, Leah Benne, and Kenson Skinner. “We all had the opportunity to work together on a single brief, which simulated a boutique firm-like environment,” said Benne.  

The brief advocates for granting certiorari on three grounds: (1) a clear circuit split exits on the issue of former employees’ ability to sue under Title I of the ADA, (2) the issue is of national importance and there is a pressing need to clarify the scope of the statute; and (3) absent guidance from the Supreme Court, the circuits will continue to splinter. “This is a particularly important case,” McCartin explained, “because all retirees, including former workers with disabilities, deserve to cash in on the benefits they earn while employed.”

For Stanley, this issue became personally important after serving the City of Sanford, Florida, as a firefighter for approximately 20 years. At that time, Stanley’s Parkinson’s disease progressed to a point that she was no longer able to work, and she was forced to take disability retirement at the age of 47. When Stanley first became a firefighter, Sanford had a pension plan for retirees that included a substantial subsidy toward each retiree’s health insurance cost. However, unbeknownst to Stanley, Sanford changed this policy so that “normal” retirees would receive the subsidy until the age of 65 while disability retirees would only receive the subsidy for 24 months after retirement. Stanley sued the city over this discriminatory practice under the ADA.

After exhausting her administrative remedies, Stanley filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. The District Court granted the City of Sanford’s motion to dismiss Stanely’s claims under the ADA. The District Court held that, as a former employee,  Stanely was not covered under the ADA, which, according to the court, only covers current and prospective employees; on appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. After being contacted by Stanley’s representatives, the Penn State Law Civil Rights Appellate Clinic quickly noted the deep and long running circuit split on this issue as well as the severe impact on workers with disabilities that would occur should the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation be allowed to stand.

“Through our research, we learned that people who are disabled are bereft of protections that they should be entitled to,” explained Cassity. Ultimately, the Clinic was able to draft and finalize an amicus brief, which argued that this question of law is ripe for the Court to address.

“It was gratifying to see our months of hard work materialize as a brief filed for the Supreme Court,” Skinner reflected.

Garcia agreed, “It was a very rewarding and highly educational experience getting to work on a Supreme Court brief. Through my membership in this Clinic, I have gained experience collaborating on legal briefs with others that I will carry through into my career.” 

The Clinic filed the brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on April 9, 2024, and looks forward to continuing to support Stanley as amicus curiae should certiorari be granted.

“I think we are all very proud of the work we accomplished this semester,” Chapple reflected. “We collaborated very well throughout the process, and this is an exceptionally wonderful group to work with.”

Foreman agreed with the sentiment. “The members of this Clinic were hardworking and diligent,” he said. “I am always amazed at the passion and work ethic that the Clinic students bring to these cases, which bodes well for their future careers.”