Jury Sends Wisconsin a $780,000 Bill for Denying Health Care to Two Transgender Workers

Shannon Andrews just helped bring comprehensive health care coverage to transgender state employees across Wisconsin. Even more reassuring, she proved that average Americans understand that discrimination against transgender people comes with a cost.

Shannon supervises a cancer research lab at the University of Wisconsin. Like other state employees, she gets health care insurance through the state. But as a transgender woman, Shannon faced state rules that specifically excluded coverage for hormone therapy and surgery relating to gender transition. Her doctors say that care is medically necessary for her. 

Being denied transition-related care can be devastating. For Shannon, it caused serious depression and even prompted thoughts of killing herself. Without insurance coverage, Shannon faced two terrible risks.  She could either drain her retirement account to pay for health care herself and risk not having the money to retire or keep her retirement savings but face the very real risk that she would not be alive for retirement. Shannon chose to pay for the care herself, but many other transgender people don’t have the savings she had.

After arranging for the care she needed, Shannon wasn’t done. She, along with fellow state employee Alina Boyden, sued the state over its exclusion, and a federal trial court recently ruled that the state’s exclusion of coverage was unlawful sex discrimination that violated federal law. Her lawsuit also prompted the board that sets health insurance policy for the state to remove the ban on transition-related health care, so state employees across Wisconsin will now be eligible for this care going forward.

Earlier this week, Shannon told her story to a jury of her peers in Madison, Wisconsin, seeking to recover both the cost of her surgery and compensation for the discrimination she suffered at the hands of the state. The jury responded by awarding Shannon $479,000 and her co-plaintiff, Alina, $301,000. 

Shannon stood up for herself and all transgender people by challenging the state’s discriminatory policy. Her courage was rewarded not only when the court recognized the illegality of the state’s policy, but also when a jury — people pulled from every walk of life in Wisconsin — heard her story and recognized the harm she suffered.

For me, it’s beyond heartening that a jury could meet two transgender women for the first time in a courtroom, understand their stories about the denial of surgery and hormone care, relate to them as fellow human beings, and award them damages like this. It’s another sign of how the country is learning more and more about transgender people, which is due to the courage of individual transgender and nonbinary people like Shannon and Alina.

Every day across the nation, the ACLU is called on to defend all the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's never been a more important time to support the ACLU and our effective work to protect civil liberties. If you like what you just read, help us continue to speak freely by donating today.

View comments (23)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

First of all, gender transition for someone diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which odds a recognized mental health condition, is NOT elective. There is no other possible treatment for this condition other than transition to the degree the patient in question is ready and willing to undergo. It is, in fact, malpractice to deny appropriate recognized treatment for a particular diagnosis. If doing your job as a physician challenges your religious beliefs, then your ethical responsibility is to refer the patient to someone who will treat them in accordance with recognized procedures to avoid malpractice.

Second, the taxpayer is on their hook for lawsuits lost by the state, regardless of what the lawsuit was for. Of the taxpayer doesn't want to be liable, then the state shouldn't make laws that they can lose a lawsuit in challenge of. That's common sense. But alas, bigotry impairs judgment...

Anonymous

Why did the taxpayer have to pay when it should have been the insurance provider.

Cosmetic treatments for mental illness are interesting. Can an anorexic person now sue for diet pills?

Anonymous

Financially, it would be in an insurance companies best interest to be forced to provide anorexics with diet pills since they'd die much earlier. The question is, would an insurance company have the morals to spend millions fighting a ruling that would save them money in the long run by allowing the patient to kill themselves off? Kinda scary.

Pages

Stay Informed