• News
    • Local
    • San Francisco
    • State
    • National
    • International
  • Perspectives
    • Opinions
    • Columns
    • Sports
  • Features
    • HIV & AIDS
    • Health
    • Seniors
    • Spirituality
    • Transgender / Transsexual
    • Real Estate
    • Everybody’s Business
    • Travel
    • Fitness
  • Arts & Entertainment
    • Theatre
    • Music
    • Books
    • Television
    • Film
  • Newspaper
    • Contact
    • Advertising Info
We The People
Voice of the LGBTQIA+ Community in the North Bay
  • News
    • Local
    • San Francisco
    • State
    • National
    • International
  • Perspectives
    • Opinions
    • Columns
    • Sports
  • Features
    • HIV & AIDS
    • Health
    • Seniors
    • Spirituality
    • Transgender / Transsexual
    • Real Estate
    • Everybody’s Business
    • Travel
    • Fitness
  • Arts & Entertainment
    • Theatre
    • Music
    • Books
    • Television
    • Film

Features/ Top Stories/ Transgender / Transsexual

6th Circuit: ‘Religious Freedom’ Doesn’t Allow Anti-trans Discrimination

Chris Johnson March 7, 2018

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled religious freedom doesn’t allow anti-trans workplace discrimination.

A three-judge panel on a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled Wednesday the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t allow employers to engage in anti-transgender employment discrimination.Writing the 49-page unanimous opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore, a Clinton appointee, determined R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan “engaged in unlawful discrimination” against transgender employee Aimee Stephens under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964.

“The unrefuted facts show that the Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employer’s stereotypical conception of her sex, and therefore the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment as to its unlawful-termination claim,” Moore writes. “RFRA provides the Funeral Home with no relief because continuing to employ Stephens would not, as a matter of law, substantially burden Rost’s religious exercise, and even if it did, the EEOC has shown that enforcing Title VII here is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest in combating and eradicating sex discrimination.”

The decision remands the case back to trial court, which conclude the funeral home did have leeway to terminate Stephens under RFRA, a 1993 law intended to protect religious minorities that requires the federal government to take the least restrictive path when infringing upon religious liberty.

Related Posts

Features /

Iowa enacts transgender bathroom bill and ban on gender-affirming care for minors

Top Stories /

Continuing the Fight for Equality: The Ongoing Struggle Against Anti-Drag Legislation

Transgender / Transsexual /

Maryland passes bill requiring state Medicaid plans to cover gender-affirming care

‹ Hawaii Advances Ban on Gay ‘Cure’ Therapy for Minors › NFL Prospect: I Was Grilled About My Sexuality

Back to Top

  • News
  • Perspectives
  • Features
  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Newspaper
© We The People 2023
Powered by WordPress • Themify WordPress Themes