## Facts

- R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., a closely held for-profit Michigan business, maintained sex-specific workplace appearance rules and provided a clothing allowance only to male funeral directors.
- Aimee Stephens worked as a funeral director for several years while presenting as male.
- In 2013, Stephens informed the owner, Thomas Rost, that she had gender dysphoria and would live and work full-time as a woman, including wearing women’s business attire consistent with the employer’s dress code.
- Rost terminated Stephens shortly after receiving the notice.
- The EEOC sued under Title VII, alleging (1) discriminatory discharge because of sex and (2) sex discrimination in compensation/benefits based on the male-only clothing allowance.
- The district court entered summary judgment for the employer, concluding RFRA barred enforcement and rejecting the clothing-allowance claim.
- The EEOC appealed, and Stephens intervened.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex” covers discrimination against an employee for being transgender and/or for failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes.
2. Whether RFRA provides a defense to the EEOC’s Title VII enforcement regarding Stephens’s termination and the sex-based clothing allowance policy.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the employer and remanded.
- The court held that terminating an employee because she is transgender and transitioning constitutes discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII, including under a sex-stereotyping theory.
- The court held RFRA did not bar the EEOC’s Title VII enforcement as to the discharge claim.
- The court held RFRA also did not defeat the EEOC’s challenge to the male-only clothing allowance and remanded that claim for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Discrimination against a transgender employee for transitioning or for gender nonconformity is discrimination “because of … sex” prohibited by Title VII.
- Title VII forbids adverse employment actions based on sex stereotypes, including expectations about how persons assigned a particular sex at birth must present or dress.
- Under RFRA, a defendant must show that applying federal law substantially burdens the defendant’s religious exercise; compliance with Title VII’s nondiscrimination mandate, without more, was insufficient on these facts.
- Even assuming a substantial burden, the government has a compelling interest in preventing sex-based employment discrimination as to the affected employee, and enforcing Title VII’s prohibition is the least restrictive means where proposed alternatives would leave discrimination in place.
- Sex-differentiated employee benefits implicate Title VII’s bar on discrimination in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Title VII prohibits firing a transgender employee for transitioning and for failure to conform to sex-based expectations, and it rejected the employer’s RFRA defense to both the discharge and clothing-allowance claims, reversing summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018)