Donate Button
Follow us...

COURT DECISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Harris Funeral Homes
2019

Full name: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Appellant, Aimee Stephens, Intervenor, v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc., Defendant-Appellee

Click here to read the decision



DECISION PENDING
Samuel Alito
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Neil Gorsuch
Elena Kagan
Brett Kavanaugh
John G. Roberts
Sonia Sotomayor
Clarence Thomas

Note: Court justices do not represent any political party. The color of each judge's name represents the political party of the president who appointed the judge.

Click here for a list of all Supreme Court justices





Appeals Court rules on transgender employment rights

This ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals states that Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects the employment rights of transgendered people.

Woman fired for being transgender

Aimee Stephens is transgendered female. Born a biological male, her previous name was Anthony Stephens.

Stephens worked as a male at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, a closely-held, for-profit corporation.

When Stephens told the owner that she was planning to transition to female and would work as a female, she was fired.

A subsequent investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) showed that the company provided a clothing allowance to male employees that was not provided to female employees.

This lawsuit by the EEOC claims that the funeral home violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act - both by firing Stephens and by having a discriminatory policy.

Funeral Home claims religious examption

The funeral home argued that requiring them to hire a biological male who represents herself as female would constitute a substantial burden against the owner's religious beliefs, which would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Circuit Court: Transgender rights protected

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the funeral home violated the Civil Rights Act in both cases.

The decision stated the law's proscriptions against sex discrimination would not substantially burden the owner's exercise of his religion.

                   Tell us if we goofed                                                  Copyright