Transgender Man Gets Another Shot at Suit Against Hospital Over Denied Hysterectomy
"Denying a procedure as treatment for a condition that affects only transgender persons supports an inference that Dignity Health discriminated against Minton based on his gender identity," wrote First District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Stuart Pollak for the unanimous court.
September 17, 2019 at 08:17 PM
4 minute read
A California appellate court has revived a transgender man's lawsuit against Dignity Health for refusing to allow his doctor to perform a hysterectomy on him at one of its Sacramento-area hospitals.
Evan Minton sued Dignity Health in 2017 after Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic hospital in Sacramento County, refused to allow his doctor to perform the procedure as part of his treatment for gender dysphoria. After Minton's denial of treatment received media coverage, Dignity arranged for his doctor to get emergency admitting privileges at Methodist Hospital, a non-Catholic Dignity Health hospital about 30 minutes from Mercy, and the procedure was performed three days after initially scheduled.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn initially dismissed the case in November 2017. Kahn granted Dignity Health's demurrer, finding that Minton couldn't allege that he was deprived of "full and equal" access to care in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act since he received the procedure he desired from his preferred doctor just three days later than scheduled.
But the First District Court of Appeal on Tuesday reversed Kahn's decision, finding that Minton had sufficiently alleged that Dignity Health had discriminated against him because of his gender identity.
"Denying a procedure as treatment for a condition that affects only transgender persons supports an inference that Dignity Health discriminated against Minton based on his gender identity," wrote Presiding Justice Stuart Pollak for the unanimous court.
In an opinion joined by Justices Alison Tucher and Tracie Brown, Pollak wrote that canceling Minton's procedure for a discriminatory purpose and waiting for his doctor to complain before rescheduling the procedure elsewhere could not "constitute full equality under the Unruh Act."
"'Full and equal' access requires avoiding discrimination, not merely remedying it after it has occurred," Pollak wrote.
Pollak wrote that by lining up alternate facilities within days, Dignity Health had "undoubtedly substantially reduced the impact of the initial denial of access" and mitigated Minton's damages. "However, the steps that were taken to rectify the denial in response to pressure from Minton and from the media did not undo the fact that the initial withholding of facilities was absolute, unqualified by an explanation that equivalent facilities would be provided at an alternative location," he wrote.
Minton is represented in the case by pro bono counsel at Covington & Burling, as well as by lawyers at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Christine Haskett and Lindsey Barnhart at Covington didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment Tuesday afternoon.
Dignity Health is represented in the case by counsel at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Manatt partner Barry Landsberg didn't immediately respond to a message Thursday afternoon.
A spokesman for Dignity Health said that the company has "a legacy of providing care to all people regardless of their background, sexual orientation, or gender identity." The spokesman, however, noted that Catholic hospitals don't perform sterilization procedures such as hysterectomies for any patient unless there is a serious or possibly life-threatening consequence to their health and courts have repeatedly recognized their right not to provide services based on religious principles. "We are sensitive to the specific health needs of transgender patients and specialty care for trans individuals is offered at many of our care sites," the company said.
Covington's Barnhart said the plaintiff's team was pleased with the decision, "which confirms that it is illegal discrimination for a hospital to deny someone care simply because that person is transgender." Barnhart said she and her colleagues look forward to moving forward with the discovery process back at the trial court.
Read the Opinion:
Updated with comment from the plaintiff's counsel at 11:20 PT on 9/18/19.
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 AllWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
LinkedIn Hit With Wave of Health Data Claims Under California Privacy Law
'Error in Our Case Law': 9th Circuit Overturns False Claims Act First-to-File Precedent
Trending Stories
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