Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
884 F. 3d 560 (2018)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Aimee Stephens (plaintiff), a transgender woman, worked at a funeral home owned by R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. (the funeral home) (defendant), presenting as a man and going by a male name. The funeral home was owned by Thomas Rost, who believed his calling in life was to serve grieving people in conformance with his deeply held religious beliefs. The funeral home’s dress code required shirts and ties for men and skirts for women. In July 2013, Stephens informed Rost of her intent to transition and present as a woman. Stephens was terminated shortly afterward. Rost stated that his decision was based on Stephens’s desire to no longer represent herself as a man, instead wanting to dress as a woman. Rost maintained that continuing to employ Stephens would violate his deeply held belief that gender is determined by God, and Stephens would be a distraction to grieving clients. Stephens filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff), alleging she was terminated because of her transgender status in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. The EEOC filed a suit against the funeral home. The district court found that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of transgender status but determined that the EEOC adequately stated a claim for discrimination based on Stephens’s failure to conform to gender-based preferences or stereotypes. Ultimately, the district court determined that there was evidence to support a claim of discrimination on that basis, but it ruled in the funeral home’s favor on the ground that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) precluded the EEOC from bringing its claim because the claim would substantially burden the funeral home’s religious exercise. The district court found that the EEOC failed to demonstrate that enforcing Title VII was the least restrictive way to achieve a compelling interest. Stephens appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.