By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
In recent years, Florida has stepped up efforts to limit access to transgender health care for adults and children, but frequently run into skepticism in the courts.
A federal judge ruled Florida’s transgender health care ban violates state employees’ rights.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in a court order wrote Florida has wronged public workers for decades by only carrying insurance plans that exclude gender affirmation care. He said the refusal to provide appropriate health care violated transgender plaintiff’s rights as defined under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that the challenged exclusions apply only to transgender members, as only transgender individuals would seek the gender-affirming treatment that is excluded from coverage,” Walker ruled.
In recent years, Florida has stepped up efforts to limit access to transgender health care for adults and children, but frequently run into skepticism in the courts. Another federal judge in the state in June blocked the state from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors and restrictions on the care for trans adults.
But this case dates back to 2020. It was brought by three transgender women, including Jami Claire, a University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine worker, Kathryn Lane, an appellate public defender, and Ahmir Murphy, a Florida Department of Corrections Sergeant. The state denied each plaintiff coverage of gender affirmation surgery.
Notably, Walker denied a claim the health care restrictions violated the plaintiffs equal protection rights, but that was a standing issue as Claire and Murphy no longer work for the state and Lane’s came centered around a cosmetic procedure, facial feminization surgery, which is separately excluded from coverage by state plans.
But the judge said the civil rights claim were more clear, especially based on higher court rulings over the last four years guaranteeing job discrimination protections for transgender individuals.
Attorneys for the trans plaintiffs praised the ruling.
“We are so grateful that the court is holding the state accountable for its facially discriminatory policy that carves out transgender state employees for unequal treatment,” said Simone Chriss, director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at Southern Legal Counsel, who represented the plaintiffs.
“There is no nondiscriminatory reason for the state to categorically deny coverage of safe, effective, medically necessary treatment only when it is needed to treat gender dysphoria but not for the treatment of any other condition. As the court made clear, ‘Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination because of sex, however they manifest themselves,’ and we are thrilled that this antiquated relic of state-sanctioned discrimination has been left in the past where it belongs.”
The ruling after years of litigation provides long-sought relief, advocates said.
"For years, Florida has denied Jami, Ahmir, and Kathryn the full benefits of their state employment," said Carrie McNamara, staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. "And the state did it because they are trans. Federal law prohibits this blatant discrimination, and we are overjoyed that the Court said so in this week's ruling."
