Claire v. Florida Dept. of Mgmt. Servs., 504 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2020).

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (December 3, 2020)

Holding: The plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims alleging sex discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause.

Background: State employees brought gender discrimination action against their employers, including university board of trustees, board members, Florida Department of Corrections, and Department's Secretary, alleging defendants were involved in providing discriminatory health plans that specifically excluded gender-affirmative care. Employers moved to dismiss.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals established in Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020), that “when a state law makes one state official responsible for the challenged action, plaintiffs lack standing to sue another, independent state official for that action.” Claire, 504 F. Supp. 3d at 1332 (citing Jacobson, 974 F.3d at 1254). The Department of Management Services (DMS), the court explained, was “solely responsible for selecting and defining the contours of state health plan benefits.” Id. at 1331. Therefore, the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not adequately traceable to the defendant-employers to satisfy the requirement of standing.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ equal protection claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 1334.

TAKEAWAY:

This case is not terribly consequential, but it’s notable for it being the first case after Bostock to deal with GAC access in the context of employment.