The city of NY is denying in vitro fertilization benefits to thousands of gay men employed by the city and their partners, a class-action lawsuit filed by a same-sex couple alleged Thursday. Nicholas Maggipinto38 years old, and Corey Briskin35, both residents of Brooklynclaim that the city discriminates against gay male couples and violates federal, state and local laws by denying them IVF insurance benefits that other city employees can access.
“We were disheartened to say the least when we were told we were not eligible for IVF benefits because of the way the policy is worded.”he declared Briskin to Washington Post. “We have the right to equal treatment before the law”. The lawsuit comes at a time when IVF has come under national scrutiny after the Alabama Supreme Court will rule this year that frozen embryos are children. The lawsuit also comes at a time when LGBTQ rights are at the forefront of American politics, with states passing laws to withdraw attention from gender affirmation and restrict mention of sexual orientation in public schools.
After repeatedly asking the city to allow them access to IVF benefits to which more than 300,000 city employees are entitled, the couple is seeking reimbursement from all those who have been denied coverage since they became eligible. his provision of benefits, and attempts to force the city to change its policy to include gay men. The case revolves around whether the city can legally prevent same-sex male couples from accessing IVF benefits. A spokesperson for the City Council, Liz Garciadeclared to ThePost Thursday morning that they will study the claim.
The administration of the mayor of NY, Eric Adams“proudly supports the rights of LGBTQ+ New Yorkers to access the healthcare they need“, said Garcia. “The city has been a leader in offering IVF treatments to any municipal employee or dependent covered by the city’s health plan who has demonstrated infertility, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.”. Briskin and Maggipinto They had dreamed of raising children together since they began a relationship after meeting in law school in 2011. They married five years later.
“We both had a similar vision about the kind of life we wanted.“, said Briskin. “And it involved raising children together.” They always knew that, for them, starting a family would have to go through in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. For gay men and their partners, IVF is the only viable way to conceive a child, the lawsuit says. IVF involves extracting eggs from the patient’s ovaries, fertilizing them to create embryos, and transferring them to the uterus.
The lawsuit alleges that the city’s policy should cover egg retrieval and the creation of an embryo – benefits that can cost tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket and that it already offers to other employees – for all couples, including gay couples. It does not allege that the city should pay for surrogacy or provide benefits to surrogates.. The city’s healthcare plan has “categorically excluded gay male employees and their partners from receiving IVF benefits under the plan” the lawsuit states.
“For many of the gay men who work for the city, it is a real gut punch that they are the group that most needs IVF and the group that is excluded from it,” he declared. Peter Romer-Friedmanthe couple’s lawyer.
The couple first learned from the insurance representative at their doctor’s office that they could not receive the IVF benefits that heterosexual and same-sex couples get because their situation did not meet the city’s definition of infertility. . They then made further inquiries about access to IVF services in the Labor Relations Office from City Hall and a human resources employee from the district attorney’s office. They all had the same answer: The couple did not fit the municipal definition of infertility.
According to the city’s insurance policy, infertility is the inability to conceive after “12 months of unprotected sexual intercourse” or intrauterine insemination, in which sperm is inserted directly into the uterus. The city “has interpreted it to mean sexual relations between a man and a woman” the lawsuit states. The city’s medical definition of infertility, which Maggipinto qualifies as “restrictive and exclusive”, has raised doubts.
“The city discriminates against same-sex male couples because they cannot meet the definition of infertility that the city chooses to follow,” it states. Betsy CampbellChief Engagement Officer Resolve: The National Infertility Associationadding that the city does not have to choose to follow the state’s definition of NY.
According to Campbellthe American Society for Reproductive Medicine updated its definition of infertility last year, defining it as the “need for medical intervention, including but not limited to the use of donor gametes or embryos to achieve a successful pregnancy, either individually or as a couple”. The ASRM states that the definition is not exhaustive. Campbell says the city may be following the definition of infertility as understood by the state NYbut it is not following the spirit of the law, which is intended to be inclusive.
The law offers a provision, he says, that should have provided exceptions for the case of Maggipinto and Briskin: “Earlier evaluation and treatment may be warranted based on a person’s medical history or physical findings.” Furthermore, the decree of the then governor of NY, Andrew M. Cuomowhich legalized surrogacy in 2021, highlighted that the law should apply equally to all couples struggling to start a family, he said Campbell. No one will be blocked anymore”the joy of starting a family and raising children simply by being who you are“, had said Cuomo.
So far, none of this has helped Maggipinto and Briskin. “There are still government entities that decide who can and cannot have children.“, said Maggipinto, adding that even adoption is much more difficult for same-sex male couples than for other couples. “When you base decisions like that on nothing more than sexual orientation, you’re making gay men see that we can’t be good fathers.”.
When Briskin joined the district attorney’s office Manhattan In 2017, the couple began planning IVF under the city’s insurance plan. It’s still under that plan via COBRA, a continuation of medical coverage, even though he has since left work. After writing to the Labor Relations Office of the city in 2021 and finding out that they are categorically prohibited from benefiting from IVF, the couple filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2022.
The Class Action Discrimination Lawsuit Against the City of NY claimed that the city’s denial of IVF benefits to the couple and other gay male employees “constitutes illegal discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation”. The couple alleged that the city government violated their civil rights by refusing to pay for fertility services that were covered for women and cisgender couples.
At the time, in a statement similar to Thursday’s, a City Hall spokesperson told ThePost: “Our policies treat everyone in the program equally, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.”. The statement left the couple confused, they said. “The city has the right arguments and the intention seems good,” he said. Briskin. “But the policy that the city advocates and offers to its employees does not reflect that sentiment at all.”
In March – almost two years after filing the complaint – the EEOC granted the couple the right to bring a civil action against the city because the commission had launched an investigation but had not yet reached a conclusion. The process has taken longer than they expected. Briskin and Maggipinto. They said they wanted to start a family seven years ago. While waiting for the city council to grant them access to benefits, they have paid out of pocket for egg retrieval and fertilization services, which has delayed payment for the surrogacy portion of the pregnancy.
Although the couple is hopeful that the lawsuit will bring them a little closer to the outcome they have been hoping for, they say the journey has had many disappointments. “I made many sacrifices, including my energy and earning potential, while working as a prosecutor in the public sector“, said Briskin. “All this so they can tell me that raising a family doesn’t matter to the city in the same way that raising a family matters to other employees.”.