Talking Points

I was supposed to facilitate a discussion but instead it changed in to a speech with a Q&A session at the end when no one want to take part in the discussion. However, it turned out to be a good speech and when they post the video tape I’ll put up a link.

These are the talking points that I used…

PA11-55
Gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth…

I pointed out that nowhere in the law does it say anything about transgender or transsexual. That was done on purpose because the law protects everyone. From the feminine man to the masculine woman, it protects the guy with long hair and an earring or the straight woman. All that is required is that  they were discriminated against because of their “appearance or behavior.”

I then discussed the other half of the gender identity and expression clause,

…which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.

I pointed out that in all discrimination cases that you must prove that you are a member of the protected class and that this just suggests some of the ways you might show that you are protected.

I said that most insurance do not cover medical expenses related to gender identity and they have a clause noting the exception; however, the AMA, APA & WPATH all say that gender confirming surgery is a medically necessary. How does that affect insurance coverage?

I went on to talk about the Oregon & California insurance commissions’ stance on health insurance for trans-people they are not requiring coverage of specific medical treatments. However, if private insurance companies pay for a non-trans-person's hormone therapy, breast reduction, cancer screening or any other procedure deemed medically necessary than they must cover it for patients who are transgender. I pointed out that discrimination is when you do something different for one group of people who are in a protected class that is different from the non-protected class.

I then said that even though Connecticut has a similar law as Oregon and California there has been no statement about insurance policies exemptions in our state by our insurance commissioner. I then challenged them to take up the cause to petition commissioner to issue a statement similar to the other states.

I then discussed this court on how it might be used in our quest for insurance coverage…

U.S. Tax Court ruling in O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that treatment for gender identity disorder (GID) qualifies as medical care under Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code, and, therefore, provided there is adequate medical documentation, related expenses (e.g. hormones, surgery, therapy and other expenses related to the treatment of GID that satisfy the requirements of Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code) may qualify as a medical deduction for federal income tax purposes. 

I then said that this may be another tool in our toolbox to use to argue for insurance coverage.

I suggested that another tool that we could use to persuade the commissioner was the…

U.S. District Court decision in Kosilek v. Spencer was a finding that, despite GRS being established medical care, and despite the right of prisoners to necessary medical care being widely settled under the constitution, the Department of Corrections (DOC) "engaged in a pattern of pretense, pretext and prevarication," to deny Michelle Kosilek the treatment that every DOC doctor to evaluate her had prescribed.

I then brought up the fact that those trans-employees who covered by ERISA would not be affected by a statement by the insurance commissioner because they are covered by federal law, not state law. I mention these two cases…

Diane Schroer v. Library of Congress
The lawsuit charged that the Library of Congress unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against sex discrimination in the workplace. The Library of Congress moved to dismiss the case several times, claiming that transgender people are not covered under Title VII of 1964. U.S. District Court of DC

VANDIVER ELIZABETH GLENN v. SEWELL R. BRUMBY
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District Circuit
In 2007, Vandy Elizabeth Glenn (who at that time went by Glenn Morrison) told her boss at the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel that she was planning on transitioning from male to female. He promptly fired her, after remarking that “it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing,” and describing a male in women’s clothing as “unnatural.”

In a unanimous opinion written by Judge Rosemary Barkett, the court held that “discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender non-conformity constitutes sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that “discrimination against a transgender individual because of her gender nonconformity is sex discrimination.”

And also the EEOC ruling last May,

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled in a 5-0 decision that an employer who discriminates against a transgender employee or job applicant because of the person’s gender identity is illegal sex discrimination based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I then opened the Q&A segment.