Federal Court Rules State of Florida’s Transgender Healthcare Ban Discriminates Against State Employees on the Basis of Sex

Federal district court judge Mark Walker ruled on Aug. 1 in favor of transgender state employees in Claire v. Florida Department of Management Services, finding that the state of Florida’s transgender healthcare ban discriminates against state employees on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in January 2020, and recently supplemented their motion explaining the impact of opinions that were issued in the interim. Three transgender state employees challenged the denial of medically necessary treatment for their gender dysphoria under the state’s categorical exclusion of coverage for “gender reassignment or modification services or supplies.”

The archaic and outdated exclusions have existed in all health insurance plans offered to state of Florida employees since the 1970’s, providing transgender state employees fewer benefits and less compensation than their cisgender counterparts.

Plaintiffs are current and former state employees who sought, and were denied, access to gender-affirming surgeries needed to treat their gender dysphoria.

Jami Claire is a Navy veteran who worked for the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine for over 30 years; Kathryn Lane serves the state of Florida as an appellate public defender; and Ahmir Murphy worked as a corrections officer and sergeant for the Florida Department of Corrections for well over a decade. The surgeries that each Plaintiff was denied under the state’s discriminatory categorical exclusion would have been covered by their employer-sponsored health insurance plan if they were medically necessary for a non-transgender state employee.

“We are so grateful that the court is holding the state accountable for its facially discriminatory policy that carves out transgender state employees for unequal treatment,” said Plaintiffs’ Counsel Simone Chriss, director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at Southern Legal Counsel. “There is no nondiscriminatory reason for the state to categorically deny coverage of safe, effective, medically necessary treatment only when it is needed to treat gender dysphoria but not for the treatment of any other condition. As the court made clear, ‘Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination because of sex, however they manifest themselves,’ and we are thrilled that this antiquated relic of state-sanctioned discrimination has been left in the past where it belongs.”

“Our clients dedicated their careers to bettering Florida, and in return they were denied coverage of essential medical care needed to better their own lives," said Samantha Past, staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. "Discrimination has no place here, and we are hopeful that this decision will encourage a commitment from the state to treating members of our transgender community with the respect they deserve and reciprocating their care and devotion to the state of Florida.”

“This decision is one step on the road to a Florida without discrimination, and it highlights the vital importance of access to medically necessary healthcare,” said Jeffrey Hearne, Chief Advocacy Officer at Legal Services of Greater Miami.

"For years, Florida has denied Jami, Ahmir, and Kathryn the full benefits of their state employment," said Carrie McNamara, staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. "And the state did it because they are trans. Federal law prohibits this blatant discrimination, and we are overjoyed that the Court said so in this week's ruling."

The case was brought against the Florida Department of Management Services (DMS), the state agency responsible for implementing and administering the state group insurance program, which provides health insurance benefits to eligible state employees.

The court concluded that “[b]ecause health and pension benefits frequently represent a crucial component of an employee’s compensation, the practical effect of denying or reducing such benefits on the basis of sex is to deny the employee an ‘employment opportunity’ on the basis of sex.” 

The court found that the treatment of gender dysphoria – like the treatment of any medical condition – should be based on an “individualized determination” of the unique needs of the patient, not blanket exclusions that mandate a one-size-fits-all approach to medical care. “[D]rawing a line between gender-affirming surgery and other operations,” the court explained, “intentionally carves out an exclusion based on one’s transgender status.”

The court will schedule a trial to determine the amount of plaintiffs’ damages.

The plaintiffs in Claire v. DMS are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, the ACLU of Florida, and Legal Services of Greater Miami. You can read the order here.