ST. LOUIS (Legal Newsline) – An employer will have to fight a lawsuit brought by a woman who says it should have provided health insurance for her son’s gender dysphoria.
On April 25, St. Louis federal judge Audrey Fleissig dismissed one count of Angelia Scott’s lawsuit against St. Louis University Hospital but allowed her other to continue. Dismissed was a claim made under the Civil Rights Act and proceeding is a claim under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“Plaintiff contends that the plan discriminates against her on the basis of her son’s sex,” Fleissig wrote. “She alleges that the plan provides less comprehensive coverage to her son because he is transgender, and she has suffered damages including out-of-pocket expenses.
“Although the Supreme Court has yet to consider whether discrimination against a person for being trangender violates Title IX, ‘(i)t would be logically inconsistent with Bostock to find that Title IX permits discrimination for being transgender.’
“As Plaintiff alleges the Plan discriminates on the basis of sex, the court concludes that Plaintiff has stated a claim for discrimination in violation of the ACA.”
Scott’s September lawsuit said health insurance provided by the hospital wouldn’t pay for her son’s gender reassignment, but the hospital argues it fails to make proper claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which governs the health benefits at issue.
Fleissig wrote ERISA excludes federal laws from its preemption provisions.
The hospital is a ministry of the Roman Catholic Church and says it is bound to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services and the teachings of the church. The health plan offered excludes coverage for treatments that conflict with those teachings, like sex reassignment surgery.
“Plaintiff has not shown that the plan engages in discrimination based on sex stereotyping,” Fleissig wrote in dismissing the civil rights claim.
“Sex stereotyping, like other forms of sex discrimination, violates Title VII ‘because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim’s sex.’
“Although Plaintiff’s son’s sex may be relevant to the benefits provided by the plan, Plaintiff’s own sex and her attitudes about her son’s sex are not. Plaintiff has not shown that she is within the class of plaintiffs authorized to sue pursuant to Title VII.”