[This column appears in the current March/April issue of Boston Spirit magazine.]
GLAD Law is in federal court representing Lillian Bernier, a transgender woman who works nights in a manufacturing plant operated by Turbocam, Inc.
Like most Americans, Lillian, who is raising two children, relies on her job to support her family and get coverage for their medical care, but her employer refuses to provide equal workplace benefits. Turbocam’s employee health plan has a complete exclusion of coverage for gender transition medical care.
Turbocam says it should be exempt from laws that require equal treatment for transgender people because of the owner’s religious beliefs. But Turbocam is represented by conservative legal groups who are also arguing, as part of a concerted national effort, that being transgender is not real.
Today our cases are about ensuring nondiscrimination laws continue to apply to our community. They are also about rebutting attempts to delegitimize transgender people’s very existence.
“GLAD Law is developing legal theories that will be building blocks for addressing new attempts to weaken our bedrock nondiscrimination laws,” said Chris Erchull, GLAD Law senior staff attorney. “We have a strong case to make on Lillian’s behalf, and a victory will help us chart a path forward to advance LGBTQ+ rights even in this hostile political climate.”
Lillian is a dedicated employee who pays into the company’s self-funded health plan just like other employees. Like them, Lillian relies on her paycheck and employee benefits to support herself and her family. Because Turbocam refuses to cover medical care related to her gender dysphoria, Lillian was forced to pay out-of-pocket for some treatment and has delayed other critical care. There is no medical basis for the exclusion. Lillian sought transgender health care at her doctor’s recommendation.
“I’m proud of my work at Turbocam,” Lillian said. “I’m just asking for fair coverage and to be treated the same as my coworkers.”
In June 2024, the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Turbocam’s motion to dismiss the case, clearing the way for Lillian’s day in court. We have just concluded months of extensive legal briefing and presentation of evidence. The case is likely to be decided in the coming year.
The litigation initially drew little public attention, but far-right activists and the Trump administration have seized on it to further their mutual project of delegitimizing transgender people’s existence and stripping away their rights and protections.
Turbocam is represented by attorneys with close ties to the administration, and by First Liberty Institute, which is an advisory board member of Project 2025 and has represented defendants in high-profile anti-gay discrimination cases. Their legal filings aggressively deny the existence of transgender people and their need to receive treatment for gender dysphoria.
In August, the US Department of Justice filed a statement of interest supporting Turbocam, which they publicized with a press release that refused to recognize Lillian as a transgender woman and continued the administration’s pattern of dehumanizing rhetoric. The filing came amidst the onslaught of policy directives and executive orders to roll back federal rights and protections for transgender people, and a pressure campaign leveraging federal funding to force state governments, universities, athletic organizations and health care facilities to do the same.
GLAD Law is ready for this fight because Turbocam is wrongfully using religion to sidestep employment discrimination laws in its mistreatment of Lillian. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rebuffed such claims, including in cases where religious entities or individuals sought to discriminate based on race, and has affirmed that “religious and philosophical objections” aren’t grounds for businesses to break the law. Our opponents are arguing to change this fundamental legal standard, which could further open the doors to workplace discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and others.
“The reality is that their policy is rooted in their dislike of transgender people,” said Michael Haley, GLAD Law staff attorney. “This became clear when Turbocam’s owner and president acknowledged in his deposition that the company owner also has religious objections to same-sex spousal benefits and IVF treatment, for example, and yet they cover those—casting light on the real motive.”
Bernier v. Turbocam represents a pivotal opportunity to affirm that transgender people like Lillian deserve the same dignity, respect and protections as everyone else. Lillian’s case also goes beyond one employee’s denied health care. It’s a critical test of whether LGBTQ+ people will continue to enjoy the full protections of significant federal laws.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today for a free subscription to Boston Spirit magazine, New England’s premier LGBT magazine. We will send you a copy of Boston Spirit 6 times per year and we never sell/rent our subscriber information. Click HERE to sign up!