The court also held that:
discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status violates Title VII.Moving to defenses raised by the funeral home, including its defense under RFRA which the district court had relied upon, the court held:
the Funeral Home does not qualify for the ministerial exception to Title VII; the Funeral Home’s religious exercise would not be substantially burdened by continuing to employ Stephens without discriminating against her on the basis of sex stereotypes; the EEOC has established that it has a compelling interest in ensuring the Funeral Home complies with Title VII; and enforcement of Title VII is necessarily the least restrictive way to achieve that compelling interest.Explaining its rejection of defendant's claim of a substantial burden under RFRA, the court said in part:
...simply permitting Stephens to wear attire that reflects a conception of gender that is at odds with Rost’s religious beliefs is not a substantial burden under RFRA. We presume that the “line [Rost] draw[s]”—namely, that permitting Stephens to represent herself as a woman would cause him to “violate God’s commands” because it would make him “directly involved in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift,” ... —constitutes “an honest conviction.”... But we hold that, as a matter of law, tolerating Stephens’s understanding of her sex and gender identity is not tantamount to supporting it.Slate reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk and Tom Rutledge for the lead.]
