At a celebration of International Transgender Day of Visibility on March 31, 2017, at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles, California, trans pride flags flicker in the weather. ( AFP via Getty Images/ROBYNBECK)
HOUSTON COUNTY, GA.- A Georgia region requested on Tuesday that a federal appeals court overturn its decision that it had wrongfully discriminated against the deputy sheriff by failing to cover the cost of her gender-affirmation surgery.
However, attorneys for Houston County Sgt. A three-judge screen of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was urged by Anna Lange to accept the charm. They claimed that it is unlawful sex discrimination to deny Lange comprehensive coverage for the procedure during a reading in Atlanta. The U.S. Supreme Court has made this clear.
After being denied insurance, Lange, an analyst for the Houston County sheriff’s office, filed a lawsuit against Sheriff Cullen Talton and the state in 2019.
According to a 2022 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Marc Treadwell, the county violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to pay for Lange’s recommended gender-affirmation procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling that a Michigan funeral home could n’t fire an employee for being transgender was cited in Treadwells ‘ order.
Lange gradually underwent the treatment after the judge mandated that the county’s insurance plan pay for it. In 2022, a judge awarded Lange$ 60, 000 in damage.
In an effort to present its case to a judge, the state wants to invalidate Treadwell’s buy and the damage award.
After the reading, Lange said,” The law is on our side clearly,” expressing confidence that the purchase and destruction prize would be upheld.
Houston County contends that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which forbids firing transgender persons, does not apply to health insurance.
The region also contends that because the plan covers some different treatments, its exclusion of gender-affirmation surgery is not biased. According to a county attorney, the state’s refusal to pay for Lange operation is comparable to its rejection of weight-loss procedures like hearing aids or lap bands. The region claimed that in an effort to reduce the cost of surgery, it covered some of Lange’s treatment, including hormone therapy and visits from endocrinologists.
“Sgt., we have one strategy.” Attorney Patrick Lail informed the magistrates on Tuesday that Lange got, just like every other state staff and sheriff’s staff.
Judges were informed that Houston County’s claims may be rejected by attorneys for Lange and the US Department of Justice, citing six another court decisions that supported Treadwell. On Lange’s behest, the federal government stepped in, stating that it was required to uphold Title VII of the 1964 civil rights law and protect trans peoples ‘ right.
” This is a simple case,” Lange’s attorney David Brown argued. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is against Title VII for an employer to provide uneven benefits due to sex.
The court does ignore arguments about additional benefits given to the commander or uncovered procedures, according to Lange’s attorneys. Instead, they claimed, the judges should concentrate on whether this specific prohibition on gender-affirming operation was unfair.
According to Justice Department lawyer Anna Baldwin, it” creates an obligation never to treat people separately because of sex.” ” You cannot have an exclusion that states that lap band surgery is not covered because you are transsexual.”
According to court records, Lange expressed her desire to start dressing as a person at work to the judge and other officials in 2018 and inquired as to whether Houston County’s health plan may cover gender-affirmation surgery.
According to the documents, Talton, who was first elected sheriff in 1972, initially refused to give Lange permission to dress as a woman because he did n’t “believe in sex changes.”
Gender-affirmation operation and medications had been prohibited by the state health strategy since 1998, and court records revealed that Houston County officials continued to do so even after the company that administers the program claimed in 2016 that the law was unfair under the federal Affordable Care Act.
