According to a new lawsuit, the city of New York is unfairly treating its gay male workers by not providing them with the same medical benefits as women and heterosexual men. The lawsuit states that under the city's insurance, employees can receive coverage for up to three rounds of IVF to have children, except for gay men.
A former city employee and his spouse are suing New York City because they were denied benefits that are available to all other employees, which they argue is discriminatory based on sex and sexual orientation. They claim that no other reason explains why they were treated differently.
The complaint, filed in federal court in New York, argues that there's no valid non-discriminatory reason for the city's healthcare plan to offer IVF benefits to male plan participants with female partners but not to those with male partners.
New York City provides extensive IVF benefits to its 300,000 employees and their dependents, including single women, women in same-sex relationships, and men with female partners. The only exception is gay men.
The city requires individuals seeking IVF services to be infertile, which is defined as an inability to conceive through heterosexual sex or intrauterine insemination, a requirement that disqualifies only gay men. Last year, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine expanded its definition of infertility to include LGBTQ people, but New York City has not done so. updated The lawsuit argues that the city's infertility requirement leads to sex discrimination, which violates several laws and constitutions.
The lawsuit stems from Corey Briskin, a prosecutor at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, and his husband, Nicholas Maggipinto, who were denied the city’s IVF benefits in 2017. They asked the city to change its policy but were unsuccessful.
The city's refusal to provide IVF coverage was a financial and emotional blow to the couple, as they felt that their sacrifice as public servants was not being acknowledged, leading to a deep sense of disappointment. In addition to the financial impact, the couple felt that the city was signaling that they were not supported in their desire to become parents, unlike their colleagues who faced no obstacles in getting IVF covered.In 2020, New York state
that health care plans serving over 100 employees provide IVF benefits and forbade discrimination based on sexual orientation. In that same year, in the
landmark case mandated Bostock v. Clayton County , the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender ident