Judge Rejects Religious Exemption In New Hampshire Transgender Insurance Case

By Damien Fisher, NH Journal

Turbocam, a Barrington, N.H. based manufacturer, must face a transgender employee’s sex-discrimination lawsuit over its refusal to cover sex-change medical procedures, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting the company’s religious-freedom defenses. However, the court also dismissed a separate disability-discrimination claim.

U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty ruled that a jury must decide whether Turbocam unlawfully discriminated against Lillian Bernier through its health insurance coverage decisions. The judge also denied Bernier’s request for a ruling in the employee’s favor without a trial.

The Sept. 28 decision leaves one claim pending under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Bernier previously voluntarily dismissed claims under New Hampshire law and the Affordable Care Act.

Bernier, who began working for Turbocam in 2019, alleges the company changed its health insurance program to exclude sex change coverage after he began publicly identifying as a woman in 2020.

The company’s previous Harvard Pilgrim plan covered transgender health services. In January 2021, Turbocam switched to a self-funded plan that excluded gender dysphoria treatment, including counseling, hormone therapy, and surgery. Operating a self-funded plan gave Turbocam control over coverage exclusions and the ability to grant individual exceptions.

Bernier sought an exception for surgery, but Turbocam declined. Bernier then canceled a surgical consultation and later learned that counseling for gender dysphoria would also be excluded.

McCafferty’s ruling was not all bad news for Turbocam.

The judge rejected Bernier’s claim that the coverage denial violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ruling turned on the ADA’s exclusion of gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, rather than a finding that Bernier did not experience a medical condition or significant distress.

Bernier argued that the gender dysphoria resulted from a physical impairment because the employee’s endocrine system could not produce sufficient estrogen to relieve distress.

“The court is not persuaded. The fact that Bernier’s endocrine system cannot produce sufficient levels of estrogen to relieve the significant distress (Bernier) experiences does not mean that (Bernier’s) gender dysphoria itself results from an independent physical impairment,” McCafferty wrote.

The remaining sex-discrimination claim centers on the reasons for Turbocam’s coverage decisions.

Company President Marian Noronha and his wife, Suzie, operate the business according to their evangelical Christian beliefs. Turbocam maintains that its exclusion reflects their conviction that a person’s sex should not be changed through medical treatment.

McCafferty also pointed to Noronha’s deposition testimony as evidence a jury could consider when assessing the company’s motives.

“Throughout his deposition, Noronha repeatedly referred to Bernier using male pronouns. When Bernier’s attorneys informed Noronha that Bernier uses female pronouns and requests that others address (Bernier) accordingly, Noronha refused to honor Bernier’s request and continued to refer to Bernier as ‘him,’” McCafferty wrote.

“Turbocam states that it adopted the exclusion, declined to modify it, and refused to grant Bernier an exception from it based on Turbocam’s moral disapproval of Bernier’s effort to obscure or change (Bernier’s) sex,” McCafferty wrote. “Further, there is evidence from which a jury could find that Turbocam’s owner harbored personal animus toward Bernier because of (Bernier’s) transgender status.”

But the judge did not find the company liable. Its opposition to gender-transition treatment did not conclusively establish unlawful discrimination, and its handling of Bernier’s name change and a workplace harassment complaint provided evidence a jury could weigh in its favor.

Turbocam sought judgment in its favor under both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

McCafferty ruled that the federal religious-freedom statute does not provide a defense in this lawsuit between private parties. Separately, she concluded that Turbocam’s free exercise argument did not entitle it to judgment because Title VII is a neutral law of general applicability.

The Trump administration has supported Turbocam’s legal position.

In August 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest arguing that neither Title VII nor the ADA required the disputed coverage and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected employers from being compelled to provide coverage contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

“In matters like this, our responsibility is to ensure that federal statutes and regulations are applied faithfully and consistently,” U.S. Attorney Erin Creegan said in the department’s announcement. “We will continue to uphold the rule of law and work to provide clarity on how these laws operate so that individuals and businesses can rely on them with confidence.”

McCafferty directed the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order within 14 days, after consulting with the court about an available trial date. The Title VII claim is the only count remaining for trial.

This story was originally published by the NH Journal, an online news publication dedicated to providing fair, unbiased reporting on, and analysis of, political news of interest to New Hampshire. For more stories from the NH Journal, visit NHJournal.com.