Stanley v. City of Sanford

83 F.4th 1333

Karyn D. STANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-10002

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Filed: October 11, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-00629-WWB-GJK Patricia R. Sigman, Sigman & Sigman, PA, Altamonte Springs, FL, Martha Ann Chapman, Martha A. Chapman, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Patricia R. Chapman, Jessica Christy Conner, Douglas T. Noah, Dean Ringers Morgan & Lawton, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jonathan Backer, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Tovah Calderon, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America.

Before Wilson, Grant, and Brasher, Circuit Judges.

Brasher, Circuit Judge:

Can a former employee sue under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act for discrimination in post-employment distribution 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 decision about Title VII retaliation in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (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 wrongful 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 employer, 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 fifteen 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 disabilities eventually left her incapable of performing her job. So, at 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 Stanley, the City changed its benefits plan in 2003. Under the new plan, disability retirees such as Stanley are entitled to the health insurance 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 insurance subsidy was discriminatory against her as a disabled retiree. Her complaint alleged violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act. She also asserted that, by changing the benefits plan, the City unconstitutionally discriminated against her in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, she brought a claim under Florida Statutes section 112.0801, which authorizes municipalities to offer employees health insurance.

The district court entered judgment for the City. On a motion to dismiss, the district court concluded that Stanley's claims under the ADA, the Rehab Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act were insufficiently pleaded. Relying on our decision in Gonzales, the district court reasoned that Stanley could not state a plausible disability discrimination claim because the discriminatory act alleged—the cessation of the health insurance premium payments—would occur while Stanley was no longer employed by the City. The district court later granted summary judgment to the City on Stanley's claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Florida Statutes section 112.0801(1). It reasoned that the City's decision satisfied rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause and that nothing in the Florida statute prevented the amendment to the benefits plan.

Stanley timely appealed.

II.

We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted de novo. United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., 776 F.3d 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2015). We ask whether the complaint alleges "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Likewise, we review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Nielsen Media Rsch., Inc., 711 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. We view the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

III.

A.

We begin with Stanley's claims under Title I of the ADA, the Rehab Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The parties agree that our disposition of Stanley's Title I claim will control all three statutory disability discrimination claims. See Boyle v. City of Pell City, 866 F.3d 1280, 1288 (11th Cir. 2017); D'Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1224 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, our analysis of Title I and the viability of Stanley's claim under it applies with equal force to her claims under the Rehab Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

The dispute between the parties turns on the definition section of the ADA. Title I of the ADA, as originally enacted, made it unlawful to "discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to . . . employee compensation, . . . and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, § 102(a), 104 Stat. 331-32 (1990). The statute defined a "qualified individual with a disability" as someone "who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." Id. § 101(8), 104 Stat. 331 (emphasis added).

We held in Gonzales that a former employee who does not hold or desire to hold an employment position cannot sue over discriminatory post-employment benefits. 89 F.3d 1523, 1531. We recognized that the ADA protects against discrimination in fringe benefits, such as health insurance, because these benefits have always been recognized as one example of a term, condition, or privilege of employment. See Pub. L. 101-336, § 102(b)(2), 104 Stat. 331; Gonzales, 89 F.3d at 1526 & n.9. But because the ADA prohibits discrimination only as to those individuals who hold or desire to hold a job, we reasoned that a former employee cannot bring suit under Title I to remedy discrimination in the provision of post-employment fringe benefits. Under the "prior-panel-precedent rule," we are required "to follow the precedent of the first panel to address the relevant issue, unless and until the first panel's holding is overruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court." Scott v. United States, 890 F.3d 1239, 1257 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). And any later en banc or Supreme Court decisions must "actually abrogate or directly conflict with, as opposed to merely weaken, the holding of the prior panel." United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1255 (11th Cir. 2009).

Stanley argues that her claim is not barred by Gonzales for three reasons. First, she points to a Supreme Court case handed down shortly after Gonzales, which she says calls into question our reasoning in Gonzales. Second, she points to statutory changes in the text of the ADA, which she says undermine the result in Gonzales. Third, she argues that Gonzales is distinguishable. We will start by unpacking our reasoning in Gonzales, and then address each argument in turn.

1.

Gonzales was the first time we considered a former employee's ability to sue under Title I. Timothy Bourgeois, who suffered from AIDS, was fired from his job but kept receiving health insurance through his former employer. Gonzales, 89 F.3d at 1524. About six months after the termination, Bourgeois's former employer amended its health insurance plan by capping AIDS-related coverage. Id. In the time between that amendment and Bourgeois's death, he incurred significant treatment costs for which he was denied coverage. Id. at 1525. August Gonzales, the administrator of Bourgeois's estate, sued under Title I, alleging that the insurance plan amendment was unlawful disability discrimination. Id. at 1524.

Relying on "the plain language of the ADA," we held that Bourgeois (and thus his estate) had no viable Title I claim "because he neither held nor desired to hold a position with [his former employer] at or subsequent to the time the alleged discriminatory conduct was committed." Id. at 1526. That conclusion followed from the text of Title I's anti-discrimination provision. It expressly applied only to "qualified individual[s] with a disability" who "hold[ ]" or "desire[ ]" an "employment position." Pub. L. 101-336, § 101(8), 104 Stat. 331. We also relied on Title I's listed examples of...