Federal Judge Keeps Transgender Discrimination Case Against Christian-Owned Firm Alive

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a transgender workplace discrimination claim against a Christian-owned manufacturer, ruling that a jury could find evidence of discrimination.

US District Judge Landya McCafferty issued the ruling on 28 September 2026 in Lillian Bernier's lawsuit against Turbocam Inc. The company had argued that its religious beliefs protected its decision to exclude gender-affirming healthcare from its employee health plan.

However, the judge granted the company's request to dismiss Bernier's disability discrimination claim. She also rejected Bernier's request for summary judgment, leaving the Title VII claim as the only claim remaining for trial.

The decision means the central employment discrimination dispute remains unresolved. It does not establish that Turbocam unlawfully discriminated against Bernier.

Bernier joined the New Hampshire manufacturer in June 2019 as a machinist. Turbocam produces machine parts for vehicles, aircraft and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

She began transitioning in October 2020. Her doctor and mental health counsellor subsequently diagnosed her with gender dysphoria. She legally changed her name in February 2021.

A month earlier, Turbocam had changed its employee health plan from one covering gender-affirming healthcare to a self-funded arrangement excluding treatments for gender dysphoria.

The exclusions covered counselling, hormone therapy and surgery. The plan allowed individual exceptions, but Turbocam declined to grant one for Bernier.

According to her lawsuit, the decision forced her to cancel a planned procedure and pay for ongoing healthcare herself.

What the Transgender Workplace Discrimination Lawsuit Alleges

Bernier filed her lawsuit in November 2023 against Turbocam and two health-plan companies, Health Plans Inc. and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare of New England Inc.

Her original complaint alleged violations of federal and New Hampshire discrimination laws. These included Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and provisions concerning healthcare discrimination.

The September 2026 ruling narrowed the case considerably. The court granted Turbocam summary judgment on Bernier's ADA claim but denied the company's request on her Title VII claim.

The court also denied Bernier's cross-motion for summary judgment. The order identified Title VII as the only claim remaining for trial.

Turbocam has publicly described its Christian mission. Its website states that the business exists 'for the purpose of honouring God, creating wealth for its employees, and supporting Christian service to God and people'.

The company argued that its healthcare exclusion reflected its owner's religious conviction that a person's sex should not be changed through medical treatment.

It relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. First Liberty, a Christian legal advocacy organisation, represents Turbocam.

McCafferty did not find these arguments sufficient to resolve the surviving Title VII claim in the company's favour.

Why the Judge Said a Jury Could Consider Discrimination

The judge examined evidence concerning the company's founder, Marian B. Noronha, including his deposition testimony.

'Throughout his deposition, Noronha repeatedly referred to Bernier using male pronouns,' McCafferty wrote. She added that Noronha continued using male pronouns after Bernier's lawyers explained her preferred pronouns.

The ruling also discussed Turbocam's explanation for excluding gender-affirming treatment. The company said its decision reflected 'moral disapproval' of Bernier's effort to change her sex.

McCafferty wrote that 'there is evidence from which a jury could find that Turbocam's owner harboured personal animus toward Bernier because of [Bernier's] transgender status'. That statement is significant because it identifies evidence a jury could consider when examining the company's intentions.

However, it is not a final finding that the company acted unlawfully. The judge acknowledged that questions about discriminatory intent can require a jury's assessment.

The company also argued that the healthcare exclusion did not establish discrimination based on transgender status. The judge considered the arguments and concluded that Turbocam had not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment on the Title VII claim. The case will therefore proceed towards trial, although the September order did not establish a trial date.

Why the Disability Claim Was Dismissed

The ruling was less favourable to Bernier regarding her disability discrimination allegations. She argued that her gender dysphoria resulted from an independent physical impairment involving her body's inability to produce sufficient oestrogen.

The judge rejected that argument as a basis for maintaining the ADA claim. 'The court is not persuaded,' McCafferty wrote.

She explained that insufficient oestrogen production to relieve Bernier's distress did not establish that her gender dysphoria itself resulted from an independent physical impairment.

The court consequently granted Turbocam summary judgment on the ADA claim. Bernier, however, has continued to speak publicly about the financial and emotional consequences of paying for healthcare excluded from her workplace plan.

In a statement released through GLAD, the legal organisation representing her, Bernier said: 'I'm proud of my work as a machinist at Turbocam.' She explained that she contributed to the employee health plan but still had to pay additional healthcare expenses herself.

'I'm just asking for fair coverage and to be treated the same as my coworkers,' she said. The September ruling leaves that dispute unresolved under Title VII. A jury will ultimately have to assess the remaining evidence and determine whether the company violated federal employment discrimination law.