
The Harris Funeral
Homes case was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) on behalf of Aimee Stephens, a funeral director for the Harris Funeral
Home that was fired after announcing her plans to transition from male to
female at work. The EEOC alleged that the Harris Funeral Home violated Title
VII by terminating Stephens’ employment on the basis of her transgender or gender-transition
status and her failure to conform to sex-based stereotypes. Under the Obama
administration, the EEOC adopted a strategic enforcement agenda of expanding
LGBTQ+ workplace rights and announced its position that Title VII’s prohibition
on sex discrimination extends to sex stereotyping based on LGBTQ+ status. The
new Trump administration’s appointments to the EEOC are not yet final, but
there is a potential that the EEOC’s position on LGBTQ+ protections will shift
under the Trump administration.
The Harris Funeral
Home Case
In the Harris Funeral case,
the lower court granted summary judgment to Harris Funeral Home and its owner
Thomas Rost. The lower court held that Stephens’ transgender status is not a protected
characteristic covered by Title VII and that the Funeral Home was exempt from a
Title VII claim under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
With respect to the RFRA, the Funeral Home and Rost had argued that having a
transgender funeral director would distract grieving customers and prevent Rost
from carrying out his religious exercise of caring for grieving people.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court and
granted summary judgment to the EEOC. The Sixth Circuit held that discrimination
on the basis of transgender or gender-transitioning status or because of their
failure to conform to sex stereotypes violates Title VII. In a strongly worded
decision, the Sixth Circuit stated, “it is analytically impossible to fire an
employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being
motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex” and that “discrimination
‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because
of a change in their sex.”
Additionally, the Sixth Circuit rejected the
RFRA defense. It held that “a religious claimant cannot rely on customers’
presumed biases to establish a substantial burden under RFRA.” It also found that
permitting Stephens “to wear attire that reflects a conception of gender that
is at odds with Rost’s religious beliefs is not a substantial burden under
RFRA.” The Sixth Circuit further held that, even if the Funeral Home could
establish that Rost’s exercise of his religious beliefs would be substantially
burdened by requiring him to employ Stephens after her transition, “enforcing
Title VII here is the least restrictive means of furthering [the EEOC’s]
compelling interest in combating and eradicating sex discrimination.”
Takeaways
While the potential extent of LGBTQ+ protections
under Title VII is still unsettled, employers should take note that, depending
on their employees’ location, Title VII protections may exist. In addition, apart
from Title VII, a minority of states and some municipalities have their own
anti-discrimination laws extending to sexual orientation and/or gender
identity. For example, the Minnesota Human Rights Act contains such
protections. Further, the Harris Funeral Homes case illustrates that religious
exemptions to discrimination law are nuanced and that an employer wanting to
rely on a religious exemption should first consult with legal counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment