Transgender Rights
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee’s employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she’s transgender. We represented Aimee Stephens in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — and won.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Learn About Transgender Rights
All Cases
63 Transgender Rights Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
Transgender Rights
LGBTQ Discrimination Cases at the Supreme Court
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-LGBTQ discrimination violates the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
Transgender Rights
LGBTQ Discrimination Cases at the Supreme Court
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-LGBTQ discrimination violates the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.
Iowa
Mar 2019
Transgender Rights
Good v. Iowa Dept. of Human Services
EerieAnna Good and Carol Beal are two women whose medical providers determined that surgery was medically necessary to treat their gender dysphoria, but the Iowa Department of Human Services denied them Medicaid coverage for the surgery. In March 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the Department’s ban on coverage violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act and affirmed the district court’s ruling that EerieAnna and Carol are entitled to coverage for the gender affirming surgery they need.
Explore case
Iowa
Mar 2019
Transgender Rights
Good v. Iowa Dept. of Human Services
EerieAnna Good and Carol Beal are two women whose medical providers determined that surgery was medically necessary to treat their gender dysphoria, but the Iowa Department of Human Services denied them Medicaid coverage for the surgery. In March 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the Department’s ban on coverage violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act and affirmed the district court’s ruling that EerieAnna and Carol are entitled to coverage for the gender affirming surgery they need.
Colorado
Feb 2019
Transgender Rights
Moore v. InnoSource Inc.
The ÀÏÊìÅ®ÎçÒ¹¸£Àû and the ÀÏÊìÅ®ÎçÒ¹¸£Àû of Colorado filed a discrimination charge against InnoSource Inc. on behalf of Dashir Moore, a 32-year-old transgender man who was denied health care coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and subsequent transition-related care. Insurance carve-outs for transition-related care are illegal, yet two days after his surgery Mr. Moore was informed that his insurance company had denied the claim and he began receiving bills from the hospital, which eventually totaled nearly $30,000.
Explore case
Colorado
Feb 2019
Transgender Rights
Moore v. InnoSource Inc.
The ÀÏÊìÅ®ÎçÒ¹¸£Àû and the ÀÏÊìÅ®ÎçÒ¹¸£Àû of Colorado filed a discrimination charge against InnoSource Inc. on behalf of Dashir Moore, a 32-year-old transgender man who was denied health care coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and subsequent transition-related care. Insurance carve-outs for transition-related care are illegal, yet two days after his surgery Mr. Moore was informed that his insurance company had denied the claim and he began receiving bills from the hospital, which eventually totaled nearly $30,000.
South Dakota
Feb 2019
Transgender Rights
Bruce v. South Dakota
The ACLU and the ACLU of South Dakota filed a federal suit on behalf of Terri Bruce against the state of South Dakota because it denies transgender employees health insurance coverage for medically necessary transition-related health care.
Explore case
South Dakota
Feb 2019
Transgender Rights
Bruce v. South Dakota
The ACLU and the ACLU of South Dakota filed a federal suit on behalf of Terri Bruce against the state of South Dakota because it denies transgender employees health insurance coverage for medically necessary transition-related health care.
Montana
Oct 2017
Transgender Rights
Hobaugh v. Montana
In response to efforts by the Montana Family Foundation to push an anti-transgender ballot measure that would bar transgender people from using public facilities like bathrooms or locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity, the ACLU and the ACLU of Montana filed a petition challenging the legal sufficiency of the description of the proposed anti-trans ballot initiative (I-183) that would go to the voters. The petition argued that the ballot and fiscal impact statements inaccurately characterize the initiative – hiding both its discriminatory effect and its impact on local and state budgets. The Supreme Court of Montana agreed, ordering the Attorney General to revise both statements.
Explore case
Montana
Oct 2017
Transgender Rights
Hobaugh v. Montana
In response to efforts by the Montana Family Foundation to push an anti-transgender ballot measure that would bar transgender people from using public facilities like bathrooms or locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity, the ACLU and the ACLU of Montana filed a petition challenging the legal sufficiency of the description of the proposed anti-trans ballot initiative (I-183) that would go to the voters. The petition argued that the ballot and fiscal impact statements inaccurately characterize the initiative – hiding both its discriminatory effect and its impact on local and state budgets. The Supreme Court of Montana agreed, ordering the Attorney General to revise both statements.