HOLDING:

The exclusion of coverage for “sex change” procedures in a state employee healthcare plan was facially discriminatory on the basis of sex (transgender status), and thus violated Title VII.

• The court rejected the defendants’ argument that, because the insurance exclusion denies coverage of “sex-reassignment surgery” to all employees equally, it cannot be said to discriminate on the basis of sex. The court found that Bostock precluded this argument. Lange, 608 F.Supp.3d at 1358-59.

  • See, Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731, 1741 (2020) (“Nor is it a defense for an employer to say it discriminates against both men and women because of sex. This statute works to protect individuals of both sexes from discrimination, and does so equally. So an employer who fires a woman, Hannah, because she is insufficiently feminine and also fires a man, Bob, for being insufficiently masculine may treat men and women as groups more or less equally. But in both cases the employer fires an individual in part because of sex. Instead of avoiding Title VII exposure, this employer doubles it”).

• The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, finding that it fails on the merits because the plaintiff had not come forward with sufficient evidence that her gender dysphoria was the result of a physical impairment. Id. at 1360-63.

  • IMPORTANT NOTE: The court’s finding that Ms. Lange’s gender dysphoria was not a disability under the ADA is in conflict with subsequent cases, which found that gender dysphoria can be considered a disability under the ADA. See Kozak v. CSX Transp. Inc., 2023 WL 4906148 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2023).