480 F.Supp.3d 417
E.D.N.Y2020Background
- Plaintiffs Tanya Asapansa-Johnson Walker and Cecilia Gentili are transgender women with serious, ongoing medical needs who allege past healthcare discrimination and a credible fear of future mistreatment.
- HHS issued 2016 §92.4 definitions under ACA §1557 treating “sex” to include "gender identity" and "sex stereotyping." A Texas district court enjoined and vacated the gender-identity portion in Franciscan Alliance.
- In 2019–2020 HHS promulgated the 2020 Rules that implicitly repealed the 2016 §92.4 definitions and asserted "sex" under Title IX refers to the biological binary. The agency explained the repeal in an extensive preamble.
- The Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County on June 15, 2020, holding Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity. HHS finalized the 2020 Rules around the same time but did not address Bostock in the preamble.
- Plaintiffs sued to enjoin the 2020 Rules before they took effect, seeking a stay and preliminary injunction to keep the 2016 definitions in force; the district court granted the stay and preliminary injunction preserving §92.4 definitions pending further order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Past discrimination and credible future risk of avoided care create concrete injury; injunction would redress it | Future harms speculative and result of third-party providers, not the Rule | Court: Standing satisfied — past harms, predictable third-party reactions, and redressability met |
| Whether 2020 Rules conflict with Bostock/Title IX | Repeal undermines protections for gender identity/sex-stereotyping and conflicts with Bostock’s interpretation of "sex" discrimination | Rule merely tracks statutory text; agency may await or adopt Supreme Court guidance later | Court: 2020 Rules are contrary to law as the preamble reveals an approach inconsistent with Bostock |
| Arbitrary and capricious? | HHS failed to consider Bostock’s controlling import after decision and finalize without reassessing | Agency provided thorough reasoning based on its Title IX interpretation and need not delay rulemaking | Court: Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously for not addressing Bostock’s impact before finalizing |
| Preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | Plaintiffs face irreparable harm to health and dignity; public interest favors preventing discrimination | Government interest in its regulatory policy and minimizing litigation risk | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; irreparable harm and public interest favor relief; stay and injunction granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity)
- Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Burwell, 227 F. Supp. 3d 660 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (district court enjoined and vacated HHS’s 2016 gender-identity regulatory definition)
- EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018) (Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender persons via sex stereotyping)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency action unlawful if arbitrary and capricious; must consider important aspects of problem)
- Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (government action may be challenged based on predictable third-party reactions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728 (1984) (discrimination itself can constitute a cognizable injury)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction)