Federal workers sue to overturn OPM policy removing gender‑affirming care

Federal employees on Jan. 1 filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission challenging an Office of Personnel Management policy that, beginning this year, ended coverage for gender‑affirming medical care under federal employee and U.S. Postal Service health plans. The complaint, brought by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on behalf of a class of affected workers, contends the change discriminates on the basis of sex and requests that the policy be rescinded and that those harmed receive economic compensation.

The OPM guidance that took effect Jan. 1 states that as of 2026 “chemical and surgical modification of an individual’s sex traits through medical interventions” would no longer be covered under federal insurance programs for federal employees and postal workers. The restriction applies to both medical and surgical gender‑affirming interventions as described in OPM’s guidance, leaving patients and their families to absorb costs previously covered by their plans or forgo care entirely.

The administrative filing includes testimony from four current federal employees who say the policy change will inflict concrete harm. The complainants include workers at the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Postal Service. One Postal Service employee described a daughter diagnosed with gender dysphoria whose doctors recommended puberty blockers and potentially hormone replacement therapy, care the new policy would exclude from coverage. Plaintiffs argue those harms constitute unlawful discrimination and economic injury warranting class relief.

The complaint asks the EEOC to press OPM to rescind the directive and to secure payment for economic damages and other remedies for those affected. Plaintiffs also notified OPM that, if the matter is not resolved administratively, they intend to press class claims before the EEOC and may bring a class action in federal court to challenge the policy’s legality.

The legal challenge arrives amid a broader wave of disputes over federal rules and policies related to transgender health care. A coalition of state attorneys general recently sued to block proposed federal rules that would limit children’s access to gender‑affirming care, and advocacy groups and medical organizations have repeatedly warned that restricting coverage will worsen health outcomes for transgender people. Advocates say the OPM change affects thousands of federal employees and their dependents and could create a test case over whether benefit design decisions that single out gender‑affirming care violate federal anti‑discrimination laws.

OPM officials could not be reached for immediate comment. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation framed the filing as a means to compel reversal of the policy and to hold the agency accountable for harm to employees who have relied on long‑standing health benefits.

Legal experts note the path forward could be complex. EEOC proceedings may yield a negotiated resolution, but a federal court fight could set precedent on whether federal benefits administrators may categorically exclude gender‑affirming care without running afoul of sex discrimination protections. For plaintiffs and their families, the immediate stakes are access to medically recommended care and the financial burden of replacing benefits that had been in place for years.