Minnesota Federal Court is the First to Address Discrimination Claims Brought Under the Affordable Care Act

March 2015

By: James B. Sherman, Esq.

In what is believed to be the first case to allege discrimination under the often overlooked civil rights provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a federal district court judge in Minnesota recently denied motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed against two Minneapolis area health care organizations.  The lawsuit accused the defendants of sex discrimination by rendering substandard health care to the plaintiff based on his status as a transgender man.  Judge Susan Nelson noted that this was a case of first impression under the relevant antidiscrimination provisions of the ACA, also known as Obama Care.  The ruling allows the case to proceed with further discovery on the ACA claims as well as related claims brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

With all the attention given to participation and coverage issues under the sweeping new provisions of the ACA, its civil rights provisions have gone largely unnoticed by the public.  The ACA prohibits health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance from taking the following actions on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability: (1) exclusion from participation in such programs or activities; (2) denial of benefits; or (3) discrimination.  This first known case brought under these provisions of Obama Care will be closely watched, since it may prove to be just the start of an explosion in the number of lawsuits alleging discrimination in the provision of healthcare in America.  

Questions about discrimination, the ACA or any related matters? Please contact James B. Sherman at (952) 746-1700 or jasherman@wesselssherman.com.

For a copy of this landmark decision, email Christine Beggan at chbeggan@wesselssherman.com or call (952) 746-1700.

Female Wal-Mart Employees Again Fail to Sustain Class Action

Undeterred by the 2011 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, another group of that same company’s employees tried bringing a similar class-action lawsuit, this time on behalf of a slightly narrower scope.  In Dukes the plaintiffs’ class-action lawsuit alleged company-wide sex discrimination on behalf of all female employees and former employees, nation-wide.  The Supreme Court in that case dismissed the class action on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not show sufficient “commonality” among such a diverse group of putative plaintiffs, especially where the challenged decisions involved distinct stores and managers.  The plaintiffs in Ladik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., apparently tried to get around the problems encountered by the plaintiffs in Dukes by limiting the scope of their complaint to “Region 14,” which included all female Wal-Mart employees in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs and their counsel the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals nixed their class action claims for the same reasons relied on in Dukes.  Although the plaintiffs in this case limited their geographic scope, the court held that they did not overcome any of the obstacles that prevented the plaintiffs in Dukes from proceeding as a class; they did not show that all of the proposed class members shared any common questions of law or fact.

As in Dukes, the plaintiffs in this case complained of a number of practices they claim resulted in lower rates of pay and promotion for female employees than for their male counterparts.  However, disparate results do not necessarily mean that there is a specific discriminatory policy that has negatively affected all of the potential class members.  Even if these women were all discriminated against because of their sex, the court determined that a class-action lawsuit was not the appropriate avenue for them to pursue their claims.