Federal Workers Sue Over Ban on Gender-Affirming Care Coverage

A class-action suit filed this week challenges the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) decision to eliminate insurance coverage for chemical and surgical gender-affirming treatments for federal employees and their families. The complaint, brought by five federal workers, alleges the ban violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “because of” sex. Plaintiffs are represented by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRCF), the DC-based law firm Correia & Puth, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. The filing cites the 2020 Supreme Court ruling that employers may not fire workers solely for being transgender and a 2022 decision that upheld restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors.

The HillThe Guardian

At the start of the year, OPM announced that federal health plans would no longer cover gender-affirming surgeries or hormone therapies, leaving only mental-health counseling and a narrow “mid-treatment” exception. The policy stems from President Trump’s Day 1 executive order aimed at eliminating “gender ideology” and follows earlier administration actions restricting transgender inmates, federal grants, and military service.

The Hill

Federal insurance plans cover roughly 8.3 million individuals, including employees, retirees, spouses, and other dependents. The UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute estimates that about 39,400 enrollees will lose coverage for gender-affirming care. Plaintiffs describe out-of-pocket costs ranging from hundreds of dollars for routine exams to thousands for surgeries, forcing some to deplete savings or abandon care entirely.

The Guardian

She likens the loss of coverage to denying insulin to diabetic patients, emphasizing the life-saving nature of the care. The administration has not issued a public rebuttal to the lawsuit.

The Guardian

• “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us,” — Kelley Robinson, rights campaign president

The Hill

• “This person is now stuck in this untenable, very unsafe situation, having to decide whether they can actually pay untold amounts of money or risk having serious complications,” — Cheng-Wun Weaver, HRCF’s senior director of litigation

The Guardian

• “If you have diabetes and you need to receive insulin for treatment that is ongoing – to have it taken away from you, it’s a devastating situation because your health is at stake, and now you have to budget for this care that adds up as you live on,” — Cheng-Wun Weaver, HRCF’s senior director of litigation

The Guardian

These statements underscore the plaintiffs’ view that the coverage ban creates an untenable financial and health crisis for transgender federal employees and their families.

The Hill