Stanley v. City of Sanford (23-997)

argument 23-997

Stanley v. City of Sanford

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 18m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in Stanley v. City of Sanford?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We hear argument next in case twenty three nine ninety seven,

Unknown 0:03

Stanley versus the city of Sanford. Mr. Gupta? Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The ADA permits former employees in Lieutenant Stanley's shoes to challenge discrimination in post employment benefits. There are at least two p paths to that conclusion here. First, the narrow path is to recognise that former employees may sue when they allege that they were discriminated against as qualified individuals while still employed. After she was diagnosed with Parkinson's in twenty sixteen and before she retired as a firefighter in twenty eighteen, Lieutenant Stanley was indisputably a qualified individual. During that period she was subject to a policy that she alleges reduced her compensation in a discriminatory manner.

Unknown 0:50

Under the ADA, former employees may challenge such discrimination. even if they are no longer employed by the time they bring suit. If the Court adopts this rationale, It should make clear that it is not foreclosing the possibility that an employee may also challenge discrimination that, unlike here, incurs entirely after their last day on the job. Second, If the Court chooses to resolve this case on a broader rationale, It should hold that former employees may challenge post employment discrimination. Read in context as the city rightly concedes it must be, the qualified individual definition ensures that employers can make necessary job related decisions. But it doesn't license discrimination unrelated to job performance or impose a temporal limitation on the ADA's protections.

Unknown 1:44

Congress made a choice to prohibit discrimination in post employment benefits. Benefits that are crucial to recruiting people to take on dangerous jobs like firefighting and policing. Yet under the city's reading, the ADA's protections for these benefits mean the least precisely when they matter most. Congress did not enact such a self defeating scheme. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:11

Uh did the uh courts below decide your uh first point?

Unknown 2:16

The Eleventh Circuit discussed this argument but did not reach it. The Eleventh Circuit erroneously in our view believed that the argument uh hadn't been uh properly presented because it appeared in an amicus brief by the United States. But that brief by the United States was filed two days before Lieutenant Stanley filed her opening brief, and her opening brief fully incorporated that argument. In fact, the first page of the brief was a statement of adoption, adoption adopting the the government's arguments, and then Lieutenant Stanley referred to that in her summary of argument and argument, and it was a focus of the oral argument below.

Clarence Thomas 2:54

Uh do courts normally adopt uh the am the positions of amicus to fill in uh gaps in the party's briefs?

Unknown 3:03

No, I think well I think in the lower courts at least, as we just saw in in this court sometimes it an amicus does play that role. But in the lower courts, conventionally no. The the eleventh circuit was uh applying a rule that um simply because something is presented as in an amicus brief doesn't mean the court has to reach it. But this is a different scenario as I just described because The Amikus brief was filed first. The position was fully adopted in the opening brief and it was discussed at oral argument. So I think under this Court's formulation of pressed or passed below, it was pressed and it is available to this Court to reach.

Clarence Thomas 3:39

When you sought cert here, did you uh make that argument or did you simply point out the split between the circuits as to whether former employees uh can bring uh an action under the ADA.

Unknown 3:54

Your Honor, this issue was ventilated in the CERT papers. Uh I think if you look at the uh brief in opposition at page thirty through thirty one, there is an extensive discussion of this. We uh discussed it at pages twenty four through twenty five of the petition and also in the Sirare reply at page nine. So I think um we understood the Court in granting the case to be um to be granting the case including that argument and it is an answer to the question presented uh that would resolve at least part of the circuit split below.