The reason that there is no coverage here is that Title VII only covers discrimination against employees based on those employees' sex. This reflects the analysis in the Supreme Court decision in Newport News Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983), holding that the denial of spousal pregnancy benefits discriminated against male employees, because the practice resulted in a lower level of spousal medical benefits for male employees than for female employees. The Court's conclusion that the challenged practice discriminated against male employees turned on the fact that exclusion of spousal pregnancy benefits denied a benefit solely to male employees since, at that time, only men could be married to women. 462 U.S. at 684 ("[S]ince the sex of the spouse is always the opposite of the sex of the employee, it follows inexorably that discrimination against female spouses in the provision of fringe benefits is also discrimination against male employees."). In the wake of same-sex marriage, however, the denial of spousal pregnancy benefits would seem no longer to be facially discriminatory.
Even if Title VII does not cover the denial of certain non-spousal benefits, there might be coverage pursuant to the requirements of another federal, state, or local law (like the Affordable Care Act), so in this post, I don't mean to suggest a complete absence of coverage.
Finally, in Tovar, Judge Kyle does not address the underlying issue of whether the denial of benefits for gender reassignment surgery would constitute sex discrimination, so that issue is also lurking out there.
This blog reflects the views solely of its author. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice on how to analyze any particular set of facts.