October Term 2024 · Docket 23-997

Can former employees sue for disability discrimination in post-employment benefits?

Stanley argues the ADA covers her denied benefits. The City argues the law only protects current employees.

Official caption
Stanley v. City of Sanford
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Gupta argued the ADA permits former employees to challenge post-employment benefits.

    Conner argued the ADA only protects individuals who can perform a job now.

    Liu argued Stanley alleged discrimination against a qualified individual under the law.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Stanley seeks to sue the City for denying her post-employment benefits. The City wants the Court to dismiss her claim. The dispute centers on whether the ADA protects former employees.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 13, 2025.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Stanley wants the Court to allow her to sue for denied benefits.

The City wants the Court to dismiss her discrimination claim.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Stanley argues the ADA covers former employees who faced discrimination while employed.

The City argues the ADA only protects individuals who currently hold or desire a job.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Jackson asked if this case involves a different scenario regarding waiver.

Justice Jackson asked what ingredients define the legal standard at issue.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who can sue for disability discrimination. It determines whether former employees can challenge denied benefits. The outcome shapes the scope of workplace protections for all workers.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON