Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has filed an amicus brief with the full Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn a district court decision that would require employers offering healthcare coverage to pay for employees' sex-change operations or face liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision was initially affirmed by a 2-1 vote from a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit. However, Marshall, representing 23 states, urged the court to convene en banc so all 12 active judges could rehear the case. The Eleventh Circuit granted this request, vacated the panel opinion, and scheduled oral arguments for February.
"The question for the Eleventh Circuit is whether an employer’s health insurance plan must pay for a male employee’s sex-change surgery simply because the plan pays for a mother to receive reconstructive surgery following childbirth. To state the obvious: the two treatments are not the same, and it is not unlawful discrimination to treat the two procedures differently," said Attorney General Marshall. "The states within the Eleventh Circuit—Alabama, Florida, and Georgia—are steadfast in our opposition to the district court’s rewrite of Title VII, which would have negative consequences for employers by imposing greater liability and reduced clarity on how far the law extends. We are confident that the full court will agree and overturn this irrational decision."
The case in question is Lange v. Houston County, Georgia. An employee sought a sex-change operation to transition from male to female but was informed that their employer's insurance provider would not cover it. The employee then sued under Title VII, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. A divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit found that failing to pay for such an operation could render an employer liable under Title VII.
Alabama led this brief along with Florida and Georgia—the other two states in the Eleventh Circuit whose employers would be directly impacted by this appellate court's decision.
###