Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.
201 F. Supp. 3d 837
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- EEOC sued R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes after it fired funeral director Amiee (formerly Anthony) Stephens shortly after Stephens announced a transition and intent to "live and work full-time as a woman," stating Stephens would follow the female dress code (skirt-suit) at work.
- Funeral Home owner Thomas Rost terminated Stephens, admitting the reason was Stephens’s intent to "dress as a woman," and defended the decision based on a sex-specific dress code and his sincerely held Christian beliefs.
- EEOC pursued two Title VII claims: (1) wrongful termination under a Price Waterhouse sex‑stereotyping theory, and (2) disparate treatment for providing work clothing to male but not female employees.
- The parties cross‑moved for summary judgment; no material factual disputes on liability were asserted. The Funeral Home raised as defenses that (a) its sex‑specific dress code is lawful and (b) RFRA protects it from enforcement of Title VII on these facts.
- The Court held: (1) the dress‑code defense does not shield the Funeral Home from a sex‑stereotyping claim generally, but (2) on these unique facts the Funeral Home is entitled to a RFRA exemption from applying Title VII to require it to allow Stephens to wear female clothing at work; and (3) the EEOC’s clothing‑allowance claim was dismissed without prejudice for procedural reasons (EEOC did not file a new charge required under Bailey).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination for intending to dress as a woman states a Title VII sex‑stereotyping claim | EEOC: Stephens was fired "because of" nonconformity with sex stereotypes; direct evidence (Rost’s admission) proves discrimination | Funeral Home: enforcing a sex‑specific dress code that treats men/women differently is permissible and not actionable stereotyping | Court: Sex‑stereotyping theory can apply (Court previously denied dismissal), but on these facts the RFRA exemption bars Title VII relief — summary judgment for Funeral Home on termination claim |
| Whether a sex‑specific dress code is per se a defense to stereotyping claims | EEOC: dress code can be challenged; stereotyping claims survive formal policies | Funeral Home: pre‑Price Waterhouse dress‑code precedent permits differing grooming rules | Court: rejects per se dress‑code defense; Sixth Circuit precedent supports treating stereotyping claims despite formal policies |
| Whether RFRA exempts the Funeral Home from applying Title VII to Stephens | EEOC: RFRA cannot defeat Title VII enforcement here; protecting employees from sex stereotyping is a compelling interest and narrowly tailored | Funeral Home: enforcement substantially burdens sincere religious exercise; RFRA entitles it to exemption unless EEOC shows compelling interest and least restrictive means | Court: Funeral Home met initial burden of substantial burden; assuming EEOC shows a compelling interest, EEOC failed RFRA’s demanding least‑restrictive‑means test — exemption granted |
| Whether EEOC may pursue the clothing‑allowance claim in this suit | EEOC: claim grew out of investigation and may be litigated by the Commission | Funeral Home: Bailey requires EEOC to file a new charge for claims not raised by the charging party and not affecting that party | Court: Under Bailey the clothing‑allowance claim is a different kind of discrimination and did not affect Stephens; EEOC failed to file a separate charge — claim dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (recognizes sex stereotyping as sex discrimination under Title VII)
- Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.) (post‑Price Waterhouse: transgender persons may bring sex‑stereotyping claims)
- Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (discusses grooming/dress standards and sex‑stereotyping claims; divided court)
- EEOC v. Bailey, 563 F.2d 439 (6th Cir.) (EEOC may sue only on claims reasonably expected to grow out of the charging party’s EEOC charge; new uncovered claims require a new EEOC charge)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (RFRA framework; for‑profit closely held corporations may assert RFRA and government must show compelling interest and least restrictive means)