User:Masem/drafts/EEOC v Harris

EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes was a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2017 related to workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of gender identity. The Appeals Court ruled in March 2018 that Title VII does not allow for discrimination due to one's gender identity, though the case is currently being appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Background
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disallows employment discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex or national origin". Following the law's passage, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established to oversee enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, typically working alongside state agencies that fulfill similar functions.

At the center of the present case is Aimee Stephens, an employee of the Harris Funeral Homes since 2008. Stephens, born Anthony, came out as a trans woman around 2012 and wrote to her employer, Thomas Rost, in mid-2013 to explain this, as it would affect her ability to abide by the company's dress code, which required suits and ties for male personnel that interacted with clients, but did not specify anything similar for females. Stephens wrote that after a pending two-week vacation, she would return to work in her female identity including wearing business-appropriate female clothes, planning to acclimate herself to it for a year prior to deciding on having sex-transition surgery. Rost, a devote Christian, fired her just prior to her vacation, arguing that having a man come to work in women's clothing would be violating God's Commandments.

Stephens filed a complaint with the EEOC. The EEOC tried and failed to result the issue through immediate negotiations with the funeral home, and proceeded to take the case to trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that the Rost had violated Title VII by discriminating against Stephens sex and gender identity. The District Court determined that transgender identity was not covered under Title VII, but other aspects of Stephens' dismissal called to other gender-related discrimination, including the gender-driven dress code. On further hearings the District Court ruled in favor of the funeral home on August 18, 2016. The District Court stated that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, compliance with Title VII would burden Rost's exercise of religion, and thus would be an exempted action. The Court further ruled that the EEOC could have sought other provisions at the funeral home, such as a gender-neutral dress code, that would have been non-discriminatory.

Lower court rulings
Shortly after the case, the EEOC filed its intent to appeal the District Court opinion in a timely manner. Subsequently, following the 2016 Presidential Election, Stephens herself filed an appeal, believing that with the changing administration, the EEOC would not longer serve to protect her interests. The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court agreed to accept Stephens' appeal. On its hearing of the case, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision by March 2018. The Sixth Circuit found that the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was flaws, as there was no burden on Rost's own exercise of religion by allowing Stephens wearing appropriate women's clothing, and that wrote that Title VII did cover gender identity as one of the classes which cannot be discriminated against.