Stay of Injunction Against Florida's Gender Transition Care Ban Issued Pending Appeal

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a stay of a district court injunction banning enforcement of a 2023 Florida statute prohibiting "sex-reassignment prescriptions and procedures" for minors. Doe v. Surgeon Gen, State of Florida, No. 24-11996 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024). According to the Eleventh Circuit, the state and its Board of Medicine, which appealed the district court's injunction ruling, met their burden for a stay by, among other things, establishing that they have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their appeal.

The Florida statute at issue, Fla. Stat. § 456.52, part of the state's health professions and occupations code, contains provisions that makes it unlawful to prescribe and administer puberty blockers to minors "for the purpose of attempting to stop or delay normal puberty in order to affirm a person's perception of his or her sex if that perception is inconsistent with the person's sex" or to prescribe or administer hormones to achieve the same purpose. Fla. Stat. §§ 456.001(9)(a)1.–2., 456.52(1). The law allows for the prescription and administration of puberty blockers and hormones to adults and minors who are already taking the drugs only by a physician and only after the patient (or the patient's guardian) signs a written consent while in the same room with the physician. Fla. Stat. §§ 456.52(2)–(3). "Sex" is defined as "the classification of a person as either male or female based on the organization of the human body of such person for a specific reproductive role, as indicated by the person's sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, and internal and external genitalia present at birth." Fla. Stat. §§ 456.001(8). 

In June 2024, following a three-day trial last December, the district court ruled the challenged provisions unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, finding they were a pretext for, and were based on, an invidious discriminatory purpose, and issued an injunction barring enforcement of these laws. In reaching that decision, the district court cited to evidence in the record that "[s]ome legislators plainly acted from old-fashioned discriminatory animus" when enacting the statutory ban and that "[n]obody who voted for the bill expressed disagreement or called the sponsors out" when the latter made statements evidencing their intent of "prevent[ing] individuals from pursing their transgender identities."

When deciding the defendants' stay request, the Eleventh Circuit considered four factors: 

1. Whether the defendants have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits
2. Whether the defendants will be irreparably injured absent a stay
3. Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding
4. Where the public interest lies

According to the court, the defendants made a "strong showing" that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the legal claims at issue because it found that the district court applied incorrect legal standards when deciding the case. First, the court stated that the district court likely misapplied the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith when it concluded that the statutory provisions and attendant implementing rules were based on invidious discrimination against transgender minors and adults. The court faulted the lower court's treatment of evidence from the trial showing that some legislators were motivated by their desire to ensure patients receive only proper medical care. Second, the court stated that the district court misapplied an intermediate scrutiny level of review to the provisions and rules under the Fourteenth Amendment's requirements, when Eleventh Circuit precedent called for a lower, rational basis standard of review of the laws.

The Eleventh Circuit stated that the other three factors also weigh in favor of a stay of the injunction while the appeal proceeds. The court found that the state would suffer irreparable harm from its inability to enforce "the will of its legislature" and to further the public-health considerations underlying the law. Physicians regulated by the challenged law and their patients would not suffer harm, the court concluded, because the law allows physicians to continue to prescribe and administer puberty blockers and hormones to adults and to minors who were already receiving them. As to the public interest, the court found that the state's interests in applying the law and "protect[ing] its children from health risks" weighed heavily in favor of the defendants. 

Circuit Judge Charles R. Wilson issued a dissent and stated he would defer to the thorough and well-reasoned decision and judgment of the district court. 

As a result of the court's stay order, the challenged provisions of the law will be in effect while the defendants pursue their appeal, although the plaintiffs could and likely will ask for a rehearing or en banc review of the decision by the entire Eleventh Circuit.

DOL Weighs in on ERISA Statute of Limitations in Pension Dispute

On August 23, 2024, the Department of Labor (DOL) filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants in Joshua Knight v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., No. 24-1281 (2d Cir. 2024). The plaintiffs-appellants are three International Business Machines (IBM) retirees, all of whom selected pension plans that provided certain joint and survivor annuities upon retirement. They filed a putative class action complaint against IBM in 2022 for alleged violations of ERISA's actuarial equivalence and non-forfeitability rules, claiming IBM used mortality data that was more than 40 years out of date to calculate benefits. In addition, the plaintiffs-appellants alleged that this practice violated the plan administrator's ERISA fiduciary duties to retirees. According to their lawsuit, if more recent data had been used, their benefits would have been larger. 

Earlier this year, the District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dismissed the claims as time-barred under the statutes of limitations and the plaintiffs-appellees appealed that ruling to the Second Circuit. With respect to the fiduciary breach claim, the district court reasoned that the plaintiffs-appellants had received pension projection statements identifying the challenged mortality tables more than three years before they filed their lawsuit. According to the court, those statements "disclosed all facts relevant to their claim of fiduciary breach." 

In its brief, DOL supports the plaintiffs-appellants' argument that the district court wrongly applied ERISA's statute of limitation to dismiss their claim for breach of fiduciary duty. DOL argues that ERISA's three-year statute of limitations provision in 29 U.S.C. §1113(2) based on "actual knowledge of the breach or violation" is only triggered when a plaintiff has in fact become aware of the facts supporting their claim, citing the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Intel Corp. Inv. Pol'y Comm. v. Sulyma, 140 S. Ct. 768 (2020). In Sulyma, the Court held that a plaintiff does not necessarily have "actual knowledge" under 29 U.S.C. §1113(2) of the information contained in disclosures that the plaintiff receives but does not read or cannot recall reading and that to meet the "actual knowledge" requirement, the plaintiff must in fact have become aware of that information. In urging the Second Circuit to reverse, DOL states that "though the Supreme Court in Sulyma admonished that 'disclosure alone' does not suffice to impart actual knowledge, the district court here held exactly the opposite." Furthermore, DOL argues that the district court did not have evidence to demonstrate whether the plaintiffs-appellants received the pension projection statements or read the calculation notes contained therein, and even if they had, that it is "not credible" to attribute actual knowledge to the retirees based on "single-spaced, often technical text" included at the end of a lengthy projection statement. DOL took no position on the dismissal of the alleged statutory violations.

Upcoming Speaking Engagements and Events

Joanne and Tony are presenting "Legal Developments in Employee Benefits Law" to members of the ERISA Industry Committee on September 4.

The firm is sponsoring the ERISA 50th Anniversary Symposium and Gala on September 12.

Joanne is speaking at two ABA webinars in September. On September 10, she will discuss "Health Care Equality," and on September 17, she will co-present "50 Years of ERISA Preemption: Where Do We Stand?"

Joanne is also speaking at the ERISA Industry Committee 2024 Virtual Fall Policy Conference on September 24.

In the News

Joanne commented in Bloomberg Law on the tough task facing the Department of Labor (DOL) to defend its 2022 environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rule after the Supreme Court's elimination of Chevron deference.

The information contained in this communication is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. For more information, please contact one of the senders or your existing Miller & Chevalier lawyer contact. The invitation to contact the firm and its lawyers is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new lawyer-client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

This, and related communications, are protected by copyright laws and treaties. You may make a single copy for personal use. You may make copies for others, but not for commercial purposes. If you give a copy to anyone else, it must be in its original, unmodified form, and must include all attributions of authorship, copyright notices, and republication notices. Except as described above, it is unlawful to copy, republish, redistribute, and/or alter this presentation without prior written consent of the copyright holder.