LGBTQ federal employees sue over gender-affirming care coverage cuts

Aug 3, 2026

Five federal employees are suing the Office of Personnel Management after it terminated insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, a move affecting an estimated 40,000 people. The class-action lawsuit, backed by the Human Rights Campaign, argues the policy violates Title VII sex discrimination laws. The change followed a 2025 Trump executive order and has left some employees facing over $100,000 in medical costs.

Class action lawsuit filing

▪Five federal employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management on August 3, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C.
▪The plaintiffs are represented by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the law firm Correia & Puth.
▪The lawsuit seeks an injunction to reverse the administration's policy and restore coverage for gender-affirming care, as well as damages for affected workers.

Trump executive order implementation

▪Following the executive order, the Office of Personnel Management instructed insurance carriers to stop covering most gender-affirming care starting in January 2026.
▪In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to cease recognizing the concept of "gender identity."

Gender-affirming care coverage termination

▪The policy was communicated via a "carrier letter" that forbade insurance companies in federal benefit programs from covering gender-affirming care for people of any age.
▪The OPM letter explicitly excludes "chemical and surgical modification of an individual’s sex traits through medical interventions" from federal health plan coverage.

Financial impact on employees

▪An estimated 40,000 federal employees, retirees, and their dependents could be impacted by the ban on gender-affirming care coverage.
▪One plaintiff, a State Department employee, faces over $100,000 in out-of-pocket costs for treatment due to the lack of insurance coverage.
▪Another plaintiff, a U.S. Postal Service employee, lost coverage for his transgender daughter, forcing the family to use their savings for her care.

Title VII discrimination claims

▪The complaint compares the categorical denial of gender-affirming care to "denying continuing insulin treatment for someone with diabetes."
▪The lawsuit alleges the policy violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by constituting unlawful sex discrimination.

Bostock precedent application

▪Under the 2024 Supreme Court precedent Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., discrimination based on gender identity is considered unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.
▪The executive order that prompted the policy change advocates for the Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. precedent to be overturned.