Sixth Circuit Extends Title VII Protection to Gender Identity Discrimination, Joining Second and Seventh Circuits

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Last month, with its decision in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018) the Sixth Circuit broadened Title VII protection to include protection for individuals who are transgender or transitioning. The Court did not mince words, holding without question that “discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status violates Title VII.” Harris Funeral Homes follows a recent Second Circuit decision holding that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII, which was reported previously on this blog.

The case concerned Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired after telling her employer she was transitioning and would begin presenting as a woman at work. Ms. Stephens’ supervisor at the funeral home where she had worked for five years testified that Ms. Stephens was terminated because she was “no longer going to represent himself as a man” and “wanted to dress as a woman” which would be unpalatable to the public. The employer prevailed in the lower court by arguing that forcing it to employ Ms. Stephens violated its sincerely held religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), and that enforcing Title VII was not the least restrictive way to protect Ms. Stephens. Interestingly, neither the funeral home nor Ms. Stephens’ supervisor claimed to have a religious affiliation.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that transgender or transitioning status is protected by Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination in employment because discrimination on the basis of those statuses cannot be separated from discrimination on the basis of non-conformity with stereotypical gender norms, which is already protected under the court’s precedent in Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2004) and Supreme Court precedent from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). As to the employer’s free exercise of religion defense, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that forcing the funeral home to comply with Title VII did not meet the RFRA’s substantial burden requirement, in part because the funeral home could not rely on the presumed gender biases of its customers to establish a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion.

The Sixth Circuit’s addition of gender identity as a protected class under Title VII aligns it with the law in the Second and Seventh Circuits. The decision widens the split among federal courts, as it conflicts with a recent holding by the Fourth Circuit, which encompasses Maryland, holding that Title VII does not include sexual orientation as a protected class. Murray v. N. Carolina Dep't of Pub. Safety, 611 F. App'x 166 (4th Cir. 2015). This split may prime the issue for eventual Supreme Court consideration.  However, employers must still recognize that sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression may be protected under state law, regardless of the federal court decision in their area. For example, under Maryland’s anti-discrimination in employment law, sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classifications. Therefore Maryland employers should include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications in their anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, and address such discrimination in their anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and training.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Miles & Stockbridge P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. on:

Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.