The United States Supreme Court ruled that the employment section of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not extend protection to retirees. A bipartisan bill  that would increase the minimum wage was introduced in the Senate. State and local fair employment practice agencies will no longer receive funding from the EEOC for investigations of gender identity or disparate impact claims. The Labor Department intends to issue a new rule concerning retirement plan fiduciaries considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors when considering investment options.

ADA Definition of Qualified Individual Does Not Include Retirees – The United States Supreme Court ruled that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not extend protection to retirees. Justice Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion in the case of  Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, stated that in the ADA’s definition of a qualified individual the use of “present-tense verbs signal that §12112(a) protects individuals who, with or without reasonable accommodation, are able to do the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer discrimination. Conversely, those verbs tend to suggest that the statute does not reach retirees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an alleged act of discrimination.”

When Karyn Stanley started work in 1999 as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for both retirees with at least 25 years of service and those who retired earlier due to disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy to provide that those who retired early due to a disability would only receive 24 months of health insurance coverage. Ms. Stanley later developed a disability that forced her to retire in 2018, entitling her to only 24 months of health insurance. She filed a lawsuit claiming the city violated the ADA by providing different health insurance benefits to retirees with at least 25 years of service and those who retire due to disability. The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the lawsuit. The Supreme Court agreed to review the decision to resolve a split among the judicial circuits.

The Supreme Court reviewed the ADA’s definition of reasonable accommodation and noted that it refers to things like “job restructuring, modifying existing facilities used by employees, and altering training materials…that make perfect sense when it comes to current employees or applicants. But it is hard to see how they might apply to retirees who do not hold or seek a job.” The Supreme Court believed that it is the role of Congress and not the court to amend the ADA if it wishes to cover retirees like Ms. Stanley.

Bipartisan Minimum Wage Bill Introduced – Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced the Higher Wages for American Workers Act (S. 2013) that would increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour effective January 1, 2026. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, and it was last increased in 2009. The minimum wage would be adjusted annually based on the inflation rate. Senator Hawley stated that “this bipartisan legislation would ensure that workers across America benefit from higher wages.” The bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

In the House of Representatives, over 150 Democrats have sponsored the Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 2143) that would increase the minimum wage incrementally for six years until it reached $17/hour. After reaching $17/hour, the minimum wage would be adjusted annually based on the percentage increase in the median hourly wage of employees. The bill also would incrementally increase the tipped employees minimum wage over six years until it reached $17/hour and at that point, the tipped wage would be eliminated and tipped workers would be paid the same minimum hourly wage as other workers. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

EEOC Ends Funding to State/Local Agencies for Gender Identity & Disparate Impact Investigations – Thomas Colclough, EEOC’s Director, Office of Field Projects sent a memorandum to state and local fair employment practice agencies advising them that retroactive to January 20, 2025, the EEOC would no longer be granting credit for intakes or charge resolutions for all charges concerning gender identity, transgender status, or disparate impact claims. To support this decision, Mr. Colclough cited two recent Executive Orders. He noted that Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”, which “required federal agencies to enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes.” Also, he stated that Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” “directed agencies, including the EEOC to deprioritize enforcement of matters relying on disparate impact allegations.”

According to the EEOC there are about 90 fair employment practice agencies that have workshare agreements, and they process approximately 48,000 employment discrimination charges annually. During the last fiscal year, the EEOC allocated $31.5 million to these agencies under the agreements.  

DOL Withdraws ESG Rule – The Department of Labor (DOL) has advised the United States Court of Appeals that it intends to withdraw the 2022 environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rule that was being challenged by a group of states in the case of Utah v. Chavez-DeRemer. As a result, the federal government would no longer defend the rule in this litigation. In a letter to the court, Daniel Winik with the Civil Division of the Department of Justice stated that DOL “will engage in new rulemaking on the subject of the challenged rule” and that DOL “intends to move through the rulemaking process as expeditiously as possible.”

The 2022 rule allowed fiduciaries in certain circumstances to consider ESG factors when investing assets in retirement plans established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). A group of 26 states challenged the 2022 rule claiming that it violated ERISA. A district court upheld the rule leading the states to file an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

Neil Reichenberg is the former executive director of the International Public Management Association for Human Resources. He is an attorney, a frequent writer and speaker on public policy and human resource issues, and an adjunct faculty member at George Mason University. For questions or additional information, contact Reichenberg at neilreichenberg@yahoo.com.