Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Some Health Plans Violate Title VII and Other Non-Discrimination Laws

Written on .

As insurance companies and self-insured employers struggle to comply with Obamacare, many are forgetting about the requirements of Title VII and other nondiscrimination laws. 

Obamacare requires that women receive certain preventive services (e.g., sterilization and testing for chlamydia, gonorrhea and HPV) without having to pay deductibles, copays and coinsurance, but is silent about whether similar services should be provided to men without charge. See 42 USC § 300gg-13(a)(4); 26 CFR § 54.9815-2713T(b)(1); 29 CFR § 2590.715-2713(b)(1); 45 CFR § 147.130(b)(1). In fact, Obamacare guidelines "exclude services relating to a man's reproductive capacity, such as vasectomies and condoms." See 78 FR 8456, 8458, n. 3. By following these guidelines, some health plans now provide that men must pay deductibles, copays and coinsurance for such things as sterilization procedures and sexually transmitted disease testing while women receive these services without additional cost.

Yet, even though Obamacare provides for different treatment of men and women, it does not supersede Title VII. Obamacare emphasizes that it should not be "construed to invalidate or limit the rights, remedies, procedures, or legal standards available to individuals aggrieved under . . . title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.)."
Public Law 111-148, 111th Cong., 2d. Sess., § 1557(b) (2010). In other words, male and female employees must be treated the same under the employer's health plan. See City of Los Angeles, Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 98 S. Ct. 1370, 55 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1978); Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Comp. Plans v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 103 S. Ct. 3492, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1236 (1983). In addition, if the employer's plan provides coverage to spouses, the male and female spouses must be treated the same. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. E.E.O.C., 462 U.S. 669, 103 S. Ct. 2622, 77 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1983). An unanswered question is whether male dependents can be treated differently from female dependents given that the different treatment is sex-based. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h), (m).

Of course, Title VII is not the only non-discrimination law. State and local non-discrimination laws can impose liability on an uninformed employer.

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

scales of justice
In April 2025, the Administration ordered federal agencies to cease enforcement of a legal theory known as “disparate impact,” a neutral po…
timeclock
The new Administration’s tax law lets most workers deduct up to $12,500 of the “half” of the “time-and-a-half” of federal overtime income t…
chairs
The U.S. Senate on December 19, 2025, confirmed two nominees to give the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the minimum number needed to…
american flag
On November 19, 2025, the EEOC released new guidance affirming EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas’s commitment in advancing robust enforcement and awa…
religuous symbols
In light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling as well as an announcement by the new Chair of the EEOC, we expect an emphasis in the curren…
security vehicle
DHS announced the termination of all categorical family reunification parole programs for nationals of Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador…