Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.
100 F. Supp. 3d 594
E.D. Mich.2015Background
- EEOC sued R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Home under Title VII alleging: (1) it fired Funeral Director/Embalmer Amiee Stephens because she is transgender / was transitioning and did not conform to sex/gender stereotypes; and (2) the employer provided clothing allowances to male but not female employees (class claim).
- Stephens informed the employer she was transitioning and would dress and present at work as a woman; she was terminated shortly thereafter with the owner saying her proposed conduct was "unacceptable."
- EEOC seeks injunctive relief, backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and relief for a class of female employees regarding clothing allowances.
- Funeral Home moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); its brief did not challenge the clothing-allowance claim and focused on dismissal of the transgender/termination claim.
- District court denied the motion: it held that while transgender status alone is not a recognized protected class under Title VII, the complaint sufficiently pleads a Price Waterhouse sex‑stereotyping claim because Stephens alleged she was fired for failing to conform to sex/gender stereotypes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transgender status alone is protected by Title VII | EEOC: Stephens was fired because she is transgender and for that reason Title VII prohibits the firing | Funeral Home: Transgender status (and Gender Identity Disorder) is not a protected class, so dismissal required | Court: Transgender status alone is not established as a protected class under Title VII; court declines to expand Title VII to classify transgender status as a protected class |
| Whether a sex‑stereotyping claim under Price Waterhouse is available to a transgender person | EEOC: Stephens alleged she was terminated for not conforming to employer sex/gender expectations, stating a Price Waterhouse claim | Funeral Home: Termination was lawful (e.g., dress code, psychiatric diagnosis, or non‑sex-based reasons) | Court: Allegations that Stephens was fired because she failed to conform to sex stereotypes sufficiently plead a Title VII sex‑stereotyping claim; dismissal denied |
| Whether the complaint fails because it alleges only transgender status rather than stereotyping | EEOC: Complaint pleads both transgender status and failure to conform to sex stereotypes; stereotyping theory applies | Funeral Home: Labels like "transsexual" should preclude Title VII protection; prior circuit cases excluded transsexuals | Court: Rejected pre‑Price Waterhouse cases that excluded transsexual plaintiffs; Price Waterhouse supersedes them for stereotyping claims |
| Whether defenses (dress code, ultra vires, Gender Identity Disorder) can be resolved on 12(b)(6) | EEOC: Defenses improperly raised on a motion to dismiss; factual issues not appropriate for Rule 12(b)(6) | Funeral Home: Raised dress‑code compliance, GID and ultra vires prosecution as grounds to dismiss | Court: Such defenses are either irrelevant at pleading stage or improperly raised on 12(b)(6); court declines to resolve them on dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (Sup. Ct.) (recognizes Title VII sex‑stereotyping theory)
- Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.) (transgender plaintiff states a Price Waterhouse sex‑stereotyping claim when fired for gender nonconformity)
- Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir.) (affirming that failure to conform to sex stereotypes supports Title VII claim for transgender plaintiff)
- Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir.) (noting sexual orientation is not a protected basis under Title VII)
- Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir.) (holding transsexual status not a protected class under Title VII)