Their argument next in case 23-997, 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 paths to that conclusion here.

First, the narrow path is to recognize 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 2016, and before she retired as a firefighter in 2018,

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.

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

...