Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sommerville

Meggan Sommerville (plaintiff) had worked at Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (Hobby Lobby) (defendant) since 1998. In 2007, Sommerville began transitioning from male to female. In 2009, Sommerville informed some coworkers of her female gender identity and began medical treatments that resulted in female secondary-sex characteristics (e.g., breasts). In early 2010, Sommerville began using her female name and wearing feminine clothing and makeup to work. Hobby Lobby never objected to Sommerville’s appearance at work. In July 2010, Sommerville legally changed her name and obtained a new driver’s license and Social Security card that identified Sommerville as female. Sommerville then formally notified Hobby Lobby of her transition. Hobby Lobby changed Sommerville’s personnel records and benefits information to reflect that Sommerville was female. However, when Sommerville expressed her intention to use the women’s restroom at work, Hobby Lobby refused to allow Sommerville to do so. At one point, Hobby Lobby stated that Sommerville would need to undergo surgery before she could use the women’s restroom. At another point, Hobby Lobby said that Somerville could use the women’s restroom if she produced a birth certificate that showed her sex as female. In 2013, Hobby Lobby installed a unisex restroom at the store where Sommerville worked. Hobby Lobby stated that store employees and customers could use either the unisex restroom or the restroom corresponding to their sex. However, Hobby Lobby still forbade Sommerville from using the women’s restroom. Sommerville brought an action against Hobby Lobby under the Illinois Human Rights Act (the act), alleging unlawful discrimination based on gender identity. Hobby Lobby argued that its restroom-use policies were based on sex rather than gender identity. Hobby Lobby claimed that sex was an immutable characteristic based on “reproductive organs and structures” and that Sommerville was of the male sex because she did not have female reproductive organs. The Illinois Human Rights Commission ruled in Sommerville’s favor, and Hobby Lobby sought review in the Illinois Appellate Court.