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
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Court upholds hospital’s termination of physician assistant who could not work required shifts
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—M.D. Pa.: Coworker’s one-time ‘chinks’ remark did not subject Asian employee to a hostile work environment
    • DISCRIMINATION—S.D.N.Y.: City employee’s retaliation and Section 1983 claims proceed, disability bias claim is out
    • DOL NEWS—WHD opinion letters address real-world questions regarding application of Family Medical Leave Act
    • DOL NEWS—Wage and Hour Division shares new opinion letters offering FLSA interpretations
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Federal Court (Mostly) Blocks California’s Push into Labor Law
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—The Hidden Legal Minefield: Compliance Concerns with AI Smart Glasses, Part 3—Privacy, Surveillance, and Labor Law Violations
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Federal workers who lost gender-affirming healthcare coverage make class claims against OPM
    • PENSION AND BENEFIT PLANS—9th Cir.: Employer’s asbestos abatement performed in ‘building and construction industry’ so exempt from withdrawal liability
    • PROCEDURE—9th Cir.: Appellate court denies rehearing en banc regarding state requirement that accredited CME courses include implicit bias information violates First Amendment
    • PROCEDURE—9th Cir.: Petition for en banc rehearing of case challenging federal RIFs denied
    • RETALIATION—E.D. Wash.: Walmart associate, fired after reporting harassment, gets trial on retaliation, wrongful discharge claims
    • STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES—Top labor and employment developments for December 2025
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Federal workers who lost gender-affirming healthcare coverage make class claims against OPM, (Jan 6, 2026)

    Organizations Mentioned:Correia & Puth | Human Rights Campaign | Office of Personnel Management

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    An OPM carrier letter directed insurance providers to deny coverage for gender affirming care under the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) plans.

    Recently, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, along with ...

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    An OPM carrier letter directed insurance providers to deny coverage for gender affirming care under the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) plans.

    Recently, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, along with a DC-based civil rights law firm, announced that the first step towards class action litigation against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has been made by and on behalf of federal employees and their families, by starting the EEO counseling process within the agency. If the matter does not resolve at this stage, HRC explains that it will pursue class claims before the EEOC and, upon exhaustion of the claims at the administrative level, will have the option to pursue a class action lawsuit in federal district court.

    Carrier letter denying coverage. In the document initiating contact with the EEO counselor, the federal employees allege that the denial of care resulting from OPM’s FEHB Program Carrier Letter, Letter Number 2025-01b, is discriminatory on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII. The letter states that for the 2026 plan year, “chemical and surgical modification of an individual's sex traits through medical interventions (to include ‘gender transition’ services) will no longer be covered under the FEHB or PSHB Programs. This exclusion expands upon Carrier Letter 2025-01a and applies regardless of age.” The policy provides only a narrow exceptions process for beneficiaries who are mid-treatment within a surgical and/or hormonal regimen for diagnosed gender dysphoria. The letter came into effect on January 1, 2026.

    Class representatives include employees who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and whose physicians have recommended treatment, as well as at least one employee whose dependent child is in the same situation.

    An impossible situation. “Starting today, untold numbers of federal employees and their families will be left out to dry at the hands of a shameless administration hell-bent on targeting the transgender community. This policy is not about cost or care—it is about driving transgender people and people with transgender spouses, children, and dependents out of the federal workforce,” said Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson. “These federal employees will now be forced into an impossible situation that pits them between their jobs and access to the care they need. That is discrimination, plain and simple, and the HRC Foundation refuses to let it stand without a fight. Our litigation seeks to honor those federal workers and preserve the rights, respect, and dignity they deserve.”

    “No Federal employee should be discriminated against in health care or otherwise. The law protects them,” said Cathy Harris of Correia and Puth.

    News: LitigationNewsTrends BenefitsNews PensionBenefitPlans PublicEmployees AgencyNews

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

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use