USCA11 Case: 22-10002 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 1 of 21 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10002 ____________________ KARYN D. STANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-00629-WWB-GJK ____________________ Before WILSON, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 22-10002 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 2 of 21 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10002 BRASHER, Circuit Judge: Can a former employee sue under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act for discrimination in post-employment distri- bution of fringe benefits? We answered “no” in Gonzales v. Garner Food Services, Inc., 89 F.3d 1523 (11th Cir. 1996). Gonzales put us at odds with the Second and Third Circuits but in league with the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. In this appeal, we must decide whether Gonzales is still good law after (1) the Supreme Court’s de- cision about Title VII retaliation in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997), and (2) Congress’s changes to the text of the ADA. We believe Gonzales is still good law. We thus reaffirm that a Title I plaintiff must “hold[] or desire[]” an employment position with the defendant at the time of the defendant’s allegedly wrong- ful act. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Because plaintiff Karyn Stanley is suing over the termination of retirement benefits when she neither held nor desired to hold an employment position with her former em- ployer, the City of Sanford, Gonzales bars her claim. We therefore affirm the district court. I. Karyn Stanley became a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, in 1999. She served the City in that capacity for about fif- teen years until she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016. Although she managed to continue working as a firefighter for about two more years, her disease and accompanying physical dis- abilities eventually left her incapable of performing her job. So, at USCA11 Case: 22-10002 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023 Page: 3 of 21 22-10002 Opinion of the Court 3 the age of 47, Stanley took disability retirement on November 1, 2018. When Stanley retired, she continued to receive free health insurance through the City. Under a policy in effect when Stanley first joined the fire department, employees retiring for qualifying disability reasons, such as Stanley’s Parkinson’s disease, received free health insurance until the age of 65. But, unbeknownst to Stan- ley, the City changed its benefits plan in 2003. Under the new plan, disability retirees such as Stanley are entitled to the health insur- ance subsidy for only twenty-four months after retiring. Stanley was thus set to become responsible for her own health insurance premiums beginning on December 1, 2020. She filed this suit in April 2020, seeking to establish her entitlement to the long-term healthcare subsidy. Stanley believes the City’s decision to trim the health insur- ance subsidy was discriminatory against her as a disabled …
Original document