As for the third ground, it was claimed that Maccabi and Clalit's policies discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and disability.
- In a motion to certify a class action filed by a certain person against Meuhedet (Class Action 54626-09-17), the groups were defined in a slightly different manner, as detailed below (the changes were highlighted in an underline):
Group A – All those insured in supplementary plans operated by Meuhedet who have undergone the process of entering into an agreement to carry embryos outside of Israel in the past seven years, and who are same-sex couples and/or single fathers and/or unmarried spouses;
Alternatively, all those insured in supplementary plans operated by Meuhedet who have undergone the process of entering into an agreement to carry embryos outside of Israel in the past seven years [the words "same-sex couples" have been deleted];
Group B - All those insured in supplementary plans operated by Meuhedet who are same-sex couples and single men.
- The remedies requested in the application submitted by a certain person were also somewhat different, as detailed below:
To order in accordance with Section 14(a)(4) of the Class Actions Law:
- that Meuhedet is obligated to informate policyholders who enter into an agreement to carry embryos abroad, single fathers and couples, married and unmarried, both heterosexual and homosexual, and for this purpose require an egg donation for the payment they paid for the egg donation;
- To declare that the following conditions are void as they contravene the provisions of the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry to Places of Entertainment and Public Places, 5761-2000 (hereinafter – the Prohibition of Discrimination Law) and because they contradict public policy:
- Limitation of entitlement in section 2.1 of the Supplementary Regulations to a "single-parent family" defined as a "single woman" in a manner that prevents the realization of the entitlement by an available man;
- Limitation of eligibility in Section 2.1 of the Supplementary Regulations to a "married couple" defined as "a man and a woman who are a couple registered on the identity card as a married couple" in a manner that prevents the realization of the entitlement by same-sex couples (married and unmarried) as well as by heterosexual couples who are not registered as married;
- Limitation of eligibility to receive an egg donation abroad set out in section 2.8.1 of the Supplementary Insurance Regulations for "insured" women in a manner that prevents single men and same-sex couples from exercising their entitlement.
As part of the legal argument in the motion for approval submitted by a certain person, it was claimed that Meuhedet discriminated against the members of the group "on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and on the basis of their marital status." It was argued that from a consequential point of view, the unified policy has a particularly significant impact on single intended parents and intended parents who are same-sex couples or unmarried couples. This is because a unified policy creates a situation in which same-sex couples and single fathers will never be able to benefit from the coverage for egg donation abroad stipulated in the Supplementary Insurance Regulations. In addition, a certain person claimed the two additional grounds that Arad-Pinkas claimed – discrimination on the grounds of disability (insofar as Meuhedet also claims that reimbursement for egg donation abroad is given only in a case where the egg donation was made for the purpose of returning the embryo to the insured's uterus, and no refund was given where the egg donation was made for the purpose of returning it to the surrogate); Violation of statutory duty – violation of section 4(a) of the Patient's Rights Law on the grounds of disability and sexual orientation.