A retired firefighter and her attorney took a hard blow at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court this week after it lost a bid to fight for the same disability health benefits that current employees receive.

According to USA Today, Karyn Stanley cannot sue her former employer "for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees, a decision that failed to give the same ADA protections to retirees that current employees have."

Her former employer is the city of Sanford, Florida, where she was employed as a firefighter.

The high court upheld a lower court's ruling that decided the same ADA protections didn't apply to her since she filed the challenge after she was no longer a firefighter.

What's happening?

The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who explained why the high court decided the way it did.

USA Today noted:

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone claiming discrimination under the ADA must prove that she held, or wanted, a job that she was able to perform at the time of the alleged discrimination.

"In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. "And the statute tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination."

Gorsuch went on to explain that Congress has the ability to extend such protections to people in Stanely's position, noting that it's not the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to do so.

"But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one," Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissenting opinion for the high court.

"Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,” she wrote in the dissent that was joined in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “It is lamentable that this Court so diminishes disability rights that the People (through their elected representatives) established more than three decades ago."

Divided lower court

The outlet noted that lower courts have been divided on the issue as it has made its way through the legal system for years.

USA Today noted:

The law was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued.

It'll obviously take an act of Congress for Stanley to ultimately get what she wants. Only time will tell if that ever happens.