R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 22 Apr 2019

1. Whether the word "sex" in Title VII's prohibition on discrimination "because of ... sex," 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(l), meant "gender identity" and included "transgender status" when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964.
2. Whether Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), prohibits employers from applying sex-specific policies according to their employees' sex rather than their gender identity.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case centered on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, also covers gender identity and sexual orientation. Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who worked at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc., was terminated after she informed her employer about her intention to transition from male to female and dress accordingly at work. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the funeral home for violating Title VII by discriminating against Stephens based on her gender identity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stephens, holding that firing an individual merely for being transgender or gay constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII because it inherently involves treating individuals differently due to their sex.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented in the case concerning whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. The dissent argued that the majority's interpretation effectively rewrites Title VII to include protections for transgender individuals without congressional approval. Justice Alito emphasized that 'sex' as understood when the law was enacted referred solely to biological distinctions between male and female, not gender identity or sexual orientation. He expressed concern about judicial overreach and warned against courts assuming legislative roles by expanding statutory language beyond its original meaning. Furthermore, he highlighted potential implications for religious liberty and women's sports if such interpretations were adopted broadly across other legal contexts.