In a significant legal move, five federal employees have initiated a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration, questioning the legality of a federal health insurance policy that excludes coverage for gender-affirming healthcare. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, targets an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directive that requires exclusion of certain procedures related to gender transition within federal and postal employee health programs. Implemented from January 1, 2026, this directive has drawn scrutiny for its alleged violation of federal employment discrimination laws.
The plaintiffs argue that the policy contravenes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in employment. They emphasize that procedures such as hormone therapy, hysterectomies, and facial surgeries are covered for other medical conditions, yet denied for gender transition, thus unfairly targeting transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. The full details of the complaint are outlined in the case.
These anonymous plaintiffs, who include federal employees both seeking care for themselves and for their transgender family members, face significant financial burdens due to the exclusion. Some have resorted to paying substantial out-of-pocket expenses, relying on savings, or even deferring necessary procedures, which underscores the policy’s tangible impact on their lives.
This lawsuit leverages the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, where it was ruled that firing an employee for being gay or transgender constitutes a violation of Title VII. The plaintiffs argue that this principle should extend to insurance coverage, framing employee benefits as intrinsic to employment conditions.
A related case, a ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March, had previously deemed a different OPM policy non-discriminatory, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld certain state-level restrictions on gender-affirming care. OPM defended its policy as a measure to maintain control over coverage standards while protecting taxpayer resources.
The case, entitled Doe v. Kupor, is currently awaiting further developments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs are represented by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and law firms Correia & Puth along with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, seeking class certification and an injunction against the enforcement of the contested exclusion policy. As of now, OPM has not issued a public response, and the government’s legal response remains pending.