Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • AGENCY NEWS—DOJ now says Civil Rights Act and ADA do not require employers to provide insurance coverage for gender dysphoria
    • COVERAGE, LIABILITY—9th Cir.: Medical residency admission was excluded ‘employment practice’ under 1975 Age Act
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Kan.: Dispatcher’s request for part-time schedule to accommodate COVID-19 fatigue not reasonable
    • DISCRIMINATION—SEX —S.D.N.Y.: Terminated employee failed to raise inference of discriminatory intent where decisionmakers were unaware of pregnancy
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—California law strengthens enforcement of tip theft
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Sixth Circuit redefines employer liability for client-based harassment
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—OSHA has extended the comment period on multiple NPRMs
    • LABOR—ARBITRATION—S.D. Ohio: Arbitration award ordering employer to cease requiring ‘double duty’ enforced
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Law allows President to fire privacy board members without cause, appeals court told
    • NAA CORNER—Assessing credibility in ‘he said/she said’ cases
    • PENSION AND BENEFIT PLANS—2d Cir.: Former employees lacked standing to assert claims 401(k) plan mismanaged retirement savings
    • PROCEDURE—S.D.N.Y: Employee’s FMLA retaliation claims precluded by New York state court proceedings
    • PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—4th Cir.: Former Federal Public Defender’s Office attorney can’t revive due process, equal protection claims
    • REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D.C. Cir.: CFPB ‘shutdown‘ dispute remanded after vacatur of preliminary injunction on failed claims
    • SENATE NEWS—Report details effects of Trump administration’s federal firings
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AGENCY NEWS—DOJ now says Civil Rights Act and ADA do not require employers to provide insurance coverage for gender dysphoria, (Aug 19, 2025)

    Organizations Mentioned:U.S. Department of Justice

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    The department filed a statement of interest in a federal court case, arguing that the RFRA protects businesses and individuals from forced coverage when it would violate their religious beliefs.

    Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that ...

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    The department filed a statement of interest in a federal court case, arguing that the RFRA protects businesses and individuals from forced coverage when it would violate their religious beliefs.

    Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it has filed a statement of interest in a lawsuit filed by a transgender machinist against their employer, in which the machinist alleges that the ADA and Civil Rights Act require the employer to provide insurance plans to cover treatment for the employee’s gender dysphoria. The lawsuit alleges that the exclusion of insurance coverage for the employee’s healthcare violates federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sex and disability and New Hampshire state law prohibiting discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and disability.

    In the statement of interest, DOJ, purporting to act on behalf of the United States, seeks “to express to this Court the government’s determination based on the statutes that gender dysphoria procedures are not covered by the ADA or Title VII, and to alert the court to the religious rights, and legal and factual controversies surrounding the Plaintiff’s claims.”

    Not a disability, agency argues. First, DOJ argues that gender dysphoria is not a disability under the ADA. “Gender dysphoria not resulting from a physical impairment is a ‘gender identity disorder’ subject to the ADA’s GID exclusion, and thus not a protected disability under the ADA,” DOJ contends. “Because the ADA does not define ‘gender identity disorders,’” DOJ argues, “the phrase must be given its ordinary public meaning at the time of the statute’s enactment.” At the time the ADA was passed, the DSM edition in use was DSM-III-R, they state, and the symptoms described by the employee in this case “fit squarely within” that version’s description and diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorders. “In other words,” DOJ argues, “when the ADA was enacted, gender identity disorder would have been ordinarily understood to include what Plaintiff alleges to be gender dysphoria.”

    Other arguments. Second, it argues that distinctions based on medical procedure or diagnosis are not prohibited by Title VII. And, finally, it argues that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects the employer from having to violate its sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring that it cover gender dysphoria procedures.

    “This Civil Rights Division will consistently protect religious liberty for all Americans, including small business owners who should not be required to pay for claimed gender dysphoria,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division. “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects sincere religious beliefs, and neither the ADA nor the Civil Rights Act requires American businesses to pay for such elective procedures.”

    “In matters like this, our responsibility is to ensure that federal statutes and regulations are applied faithfully and consistently,” said U.S. Attorney Erin Creegan for the District of New Hampshire. “We will continue to uphold the rule of law and work to provide clarity on how these laws operate so that individuals and businesses can rely on them with confidence.”

    GLAD Law, which is litigating the case on behalf of the machinist, has previously stated, “A business owner’s religious beliefs must never be a legal justification to deprive an employee of necessary healthcare.” GLAD Attorney Chris Erchull, who helped successfully represent the employee in defeating a motion to dismiss in 2024, explained that the machinist “is a dedicated employee who is paying into the company’s employee health plan, and she deserves to be treated with the same dignity, humanity, and fairness as other employees.”

    MainStory: TopStory BenefitsNews LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews Discrimination SexDiscrimination PensionBenefitPlans ESGNews GCNNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use