Court Cases

We filed suit on behalf of two transgender women and one transgender man who were state employees denied coverage for gender-affirming care in their state healthcare plans. All of the state healthcare plans, including those provided to the Plaintiffs, explicitly exclude coverage of “gender reassignment or modification services or supplies.” These plans single out transgender employees for unequal treatment by categorically depriving them of coverage for gender-affirming care through their exclusions. Other state employees who are not transgender do not face categorical exclusions barring coverage for medically necessary health care. We filed the case in January 2020 with claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We amended our complaint in April 2020. Summary-judgment briefing was completed in March 2021. In August 2024, the judge granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs, holding that the categorical exclusions violate Title VII. Supplemental briefs were ordered on the effect of a related decision pending in the Eleventh Circuit (Lange v. Houston County, Georgia). On November 3, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to reconsider the partial summary judgment in light of the full Eleventh Circuit’s en banc decision in Lange.

Mr. Jones is a Black disabled man who was injured by law-enforcement use of force. On August 8, 2020, Officer Ceinski stopped Mr. Jones for a traffic infraction in Sarasota, Florida. Mr. Jones complied with the officer’s request to exit the vehicle, but had difficulty due to a disability affecting his hands. While offering his documents to the officer, Mr. Jones provided his concealed carry permit and informed the officer there was a weapon in the car. Upon seeing the weapon in the car, the officer violently restrained and choked Mr. Jones despite him standing in front of the vehicle and making no attempt to reach for the weapon. After the incident, Mr. Jones sued Officer Ceinski for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment for the officer based on qualified immunity, ruling Officer Ceinski’s conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right. We filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit in December 2023, asking the court to consider an officer’s knowledge of an individual’s disability as a central aspect of determining, under Graham v. Connor and its progeny, the objective reasonableness of a police officer’s use of force. The brief also contended that the failure to consider disability in the Graham analysis disparately harms Black disabled people because they are disproportionately subjected to police use of force.