Steptoe & Johnson Challenges Trump Administration's Rollback of LGBTQ Health Care Protections
The complaint, filed by attorneys with Steptoe & Johnson and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, argues the rule conflicts with the Supreme Court's recent opinion protecting employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
June 22, 2020 at 12:16 PM
4 minute read
A coalition of LGBTQ groups and health care providers are suing the Trump administration over its rollback of health care protections for LGBTQ people, alleging the move conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling blocking discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace.
The complaint was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by attorneys with Steptoe & Johnson and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and appears to be the first lawsuit lodged over the rule change after it was announced earlier this month.
The new rule—set to go into effect in mid-August—alters the definition of sex discrimination laid out in the Affordable Care Act to exclude transgender people, among other changes. Advocacy groups decried the move, highlighting its announcement during the COVID-19 pandemic and Pride Month.
"The elimination of this definition not only invites health care insurers and providers to discriminate against LGBTQ people seeking health care, but it also introduces substantial confusion among health care providers and insurers regarding their legal obligations and the right of the populations they serve to be free from sex discrimination, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which held that discrimination based on transgender status or sexual orientation 'necessarily entails discrimination based on sex,'" the lawsuit reads.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last week that workplace protections against discrimination on the basis of sex also apply to sexual orientation. The complaint states the new rule, released ahead of the justices's ruling, noted that "a holding by the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning of 'on the basis of sex' under Title VII will likely have ramifications for the definition of 'on the basis of sex' under Title IX.'"
"However, undeterred from their goal to foster discrimination against LGBTQ people, HHS published the Revised Rule, without any changes, four days after the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock," the court filing reads.
The lawsuit alleges the rule change violates the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as due process and equal protections under the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment's Establishment clause and free speech protections.
"The Revised Rule, if allowed to go into effect, will undermine the progress achieved so far in eradicating health care discrimination against LGBTQ people in a broad array of health care programs and entities by inviting health care insurers and providers once again to discriminate against them, while also discouraging LGBTQ people from seeking health care in the first instance," the complaint reads.
Other lawsuits over the rule change are expected to land in federal court. The ACLU said it will go to court over the move, and the Human Rights Campaign also said it would team up with firm Baker Hostetler to make a similar challenge.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute readNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Freshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
3 minute readHow Big Law Congressional Investigation Practices Will Stay Busy in 2025
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250