When employers make a conscious decision to skip the sex checkbox when enrolling staff in insurance plans for the sake of gender equality, we see many carriers knock back the application. (Photo: Shutterstock)

The modern-day office has become a battleground of socio-political efforts to embrace a more diverse, collaborative and equal world. Companies have ditched corner offices for open floor plans (for better or worse), eliminated water bottles in the breakroom for branded water bottles, and are making an active effort to hire previously un(der)represented cohorts. This particular fight to bring parity in the workplace is shifting from a battle of the sexes to a joining of forces, creating an environment where gender is inconsequential and talent and merit come first.

For HR managers, embracing gender neutrality is a double-edged sword. It's a win for company culture as more individuals witness positive changes being put into action that make them feel gender-based disparity is fading in the corporate world. Yet, most insurance systems are still codified on gender, making the male or female distinction a sticking point.

Related: Florida employees claim sex discrimination for transgender surgery denials

Historically, insurers will assess liability by reviewing the health profiles associated with men and women. Men are thought to be more likely to suffer from stress and face health issues due to their genetic makeup often compounded with the effects of poor diet and lack of consistent exercise. Thus, they have a higher potential to experience mortality at a younger age than the opposite gender. Carriers rely on these risk group markers, as well as those for women, to determine potential liability.

When employers make a conscious decision to skip the sex checkbox when enrolling staff in insurance plans for the sake of gender equality, we see many carriers knock back the application, asking the company to supply a male or female flag or be declined coverage. For some, it's strictly an administrative bottleneck. This could be due to outdated software that may not support alternative- or non- genders without a rewrite, as well as risk models that don't account for characteristics other than male or female. In many cases, HR just doesn't have the latitude to acknowledge identity without these classifications.

Most recently, a new variable added extra complexity to an already-complicated situation. Twelve percent of millennials self-identify as gender non-conforming, according to a 2017 Harris Poll survey. These individuals are not considered in traditional risk models and often are only presented M/F checkboxes that don't apply to them.

As the millennial demographic already represents half of the workforce, employers and carriers would do well to update their systems to eliminate these issues. Otherwise, forcing individuals to select either/or can put the employer in a difficult position, opening the door to damaging lawsuits from aggrieved workers who feel discriminated against. For those employers deemed guilty of discrimination, legal bills can be huge, the PR cost incalculable, and the cost of the medical care that was previously denied can be tremendous.

To address the modern workforce, insurers must abandon this polar approach and replace it with a holistic methodology to identify the eligibility of every individual. Carriers urgently need to reassess their risk profiling through the lens of a more diverse and fluid range of possibilities and eliminate gender grouping altogether. I am hopeful that we will see progress in the coming years. And in order to do so, insurance systems will need to start thinking outside of the box.

Rachel Lyubovitzky is CEO of EverythingBenefits.

Read more: 

• EEOC at odds with DOJ over protections for transgender employees
• Companies beefing up benefits for transgender workers
• Primary care physicians to get guidelines on transgender patients