Title VII and what it does/doesn't cover
Meet Aimee Stephens
Ms Stephens is a transgender woman who informed her employer in July of 2013 she was going to begin her transition. She probably had no inkling what an impact her announcement would wind up having.
On August 18, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Sean Cox ruled that Ms Stephens' former employer could use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to successfully defend itself against the discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on Ms Stephens' behalf. Unless she prevails on appeal, this is a victory for R.G. and G.R. Funeral Homes, her former employer.
LGBTQ organizations, columnists and the media are reporting that Ms Stephens was fired solely because she is a transgendered woman. The judge's ruling doesn't say that, in so many words, but it says a lot.
This court had previously rejected the EEOC's attempt to expand Title VII to include transgender status or gender identity as protected classes.
The judge's ruling also states that there is no dispute that job performance was not an issue in the termination of Ms Stephens.
The ruling states that based on a precedent in a sex-discrimination case involving Price Waterhouse and sex discrimination, a claim could proceed on the basis that the employer provided work clothing for male employees but not female employees.
The ruling granting summary judgment to the employer is based on two defenses:
1. The employer's sex-specific dress code, requiring male employees to wear a suit jacket and pants, with shirt and tie, and requiring female employees to wear a skirted suit does not constitute "impermissible sex stereotyping" under Title VII.
2. The employer is entitled to an exemption under the aforementioned Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the remedy sought by the EEOC on behalf of Ms Stephens would impose "...a substantial burden on its ability to conduct business in accordance with its sincerely-held religious beliefs."
What's really interesting about this is that the genesis of this ruling can be found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the case where the court ruled that "closely-held corporations" are exempt from laws its owners object to on a religious basis, provided there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interests.
I'm all for affording people the right to practice their religion as they see fit, right up to the point where those practices harm others. This ruling could be used by big companies like Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby to discriminate against transgendered employees because of the religious beliefs of the owners of these closely-held corporations. That's frightening, at least in my mind it is.
Ms Stephens is a transgender woman who informed her employer in July of 2013 she was going to begin her transition. She probably had no inkling what an impact her announcement would wind up having.
On August 18, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Sean Cox ruled that Ms Stephens' former employer could use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to successfully defend itself against the discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on Ms Stephens' behalf. Unless she prevails on appeal, this is a victory for R.G. and G.R. Funeral Homes, her former employer.
LGBTQ organizations, columnists and the media are reporting that Ms Stephens was fired solely because she is a transgendered woman. The judge's ruling doesn't say that, in so many words, but it says a lot.
This court had previously rejected the EEOC's attempt to expand Title VII to include transgender status or gender identity as protected classes.
The judge's ruling also states that there is no dispute that job performance was not an issue in the termination of Ms Stephens.
The ruling states that based on a precedent in a sex-discrimination case involving Price Waterhouse and sex discrimination, a claim could proceed on the basis that the employer provided work clothing for male employees but not female employees.
The ruling granting summary judgment to the employer is based on two defenses:
1. The employer's sex-specific dress code, requiring male employees to wear a suit jacket and pants, with shirt and tie, and requiring female employees to wear a skirted suit does not constitute "impermissible sex stereotyping" under Title VII.
2. The employer is entitled to an exemption under the aforementioned Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the remedy sought by the EEOC on behalf of Ms Stephens would impose "...a substantial burden on its ability to conduct business in accordance with its sincerely-held religious beliefs."
What's really interesting about this is that the genesis of this ruling can be found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the case where the court ruled that "closely-held corporations" are exempt from laws its owners object to on a religious basis, provided there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interests.
I'm all for affording people the right to practice their religion as they see fit, right up to the point where those practices harm others. This ruling could be used by big companies like Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby to discriminate against transgendered employees because of the religious beliefs of the owners of these closely-held corporations. That's frightening, at least in my mind it is.
posted by me at 7:04 PM
<< Home