No. 18-107 In the Supreme Court of the United States

[Pages:31]No. 18-107

In the Supreme Court of the United States

R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record

JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General

JOHN M. GORE Acting Assistant Attorney General

ERIC TREENE Special Counsel

CHARLES W. SCARBOROUGH STEPHANIE R. MARCUS

Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@ (202) 514-2217

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., makes it an "unlawful employment practice for an employer * * * to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of," inter alia, "such individual's * * * sex." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). Petitioner operates private funeral homes that maintain a sex-specific dress code for employees who interact with the public. Petitioner terminated an employee, who was biologically male, after the employee informed petitioner that the employee intended to transition from male to female and to dress as a female. The court of appeals held that petitioner had thereby discriminated against the employee because of the employee's sex in violation of Title VII by applying its dress code based on the employee's biological sex rather than the employee's gender identity. The court additionally held that discrimination based on an individual's gender identity "is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex" that always violates Title VII. Pet. App. 15a. The questions presented are as follows:

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that petitioner discriminated against the employee "because of" the employee's "sex" by applying its sexspecific dress code based on the employee's biological sex rather than the employee's gender identity.

2. Whether discrimination against an individual because of the individual's gender identity constitutes discrimination "because of such individual's * * * sex," 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), in violation of Title VII.

(I)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Argument..................................................................................... 11 Conclusion ................................................................................... 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1155 (2002) ..................................... 13

Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1979) ........ 13 City of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart,

435 U.S. 702 (1978).............................................................. 18 DeSantis v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.,

608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1979), abrogated on other grounds, Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................... 13 Doe ex rel. Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist.:

893 F.3d 179 (3d Cir.), vacated on reh'g, 897 F.3d 515 (3d Cir.), and superseded by 897 F.3d 518 (3d Cir. 2018) ...... 24

897 F.3d 518 (3d Cir. 2018) ............................................. 24 Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth.,

502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) ........................................... 23 Evans v. Georgia Reg'l Hosp.,

850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 557 (2017) ..................................... 14

(III)

IV

Cases--Continued:

Page

G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded, 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017)................. 24

Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) .............. 24

Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G. ex rel. Grimm, 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017) ......................................................... 24

Hamm v. Weyauwega Milk Prods., Inc., 332 F.3d 1058 (7th Cir. 2003), overruled by, Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339 (2017) ............................................................. 13

Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999) ............................................... 13

Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017) ............................... 9, 14, 15, 17

Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977) ............................................... 23

Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006).......................................8, 18

Medina v. Income Support Div., 413 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2005) ........................................... 14

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) ........................................... 10, 18, 21, 22

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) ........................................... 6, 12, 18, 20

Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014).............................................................. 17

Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) .......... 24

Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000), overruled by, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), petition for cert. pending, No. 17-1623 (filed May 29, 2018) ............................................................ 13

Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) ........ 7

V

Cases--Continued:

Page

Sommers v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 667 F.2d 748 (8th Cir. 1982) ............................................... 23

Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 (1985) ..................................... 23

Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1104 (2007) ..................................... 13

Whitaker ex rel. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. dismissed, 138 S. Ct. 1260 (2018).............................. 24

Williamson v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089 (1990) ..................................... 13

Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 99 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 1996) ................................................. 13

Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), petition for cert. pending, No. 17-1623 (filed May 29, 2018) ........................................ 10, 14, 15, 17

Constitution and statutes:

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV (Equal Protection Clause)....... 24 Civil Rights Act of 1964, Tit. VII,

42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ............................................ passim 42 U.S.C. 2000e ................................................................ 16 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) ..............................5, 11, 13, 16, 19

Civil Rights Remedies for Gender-Motivated Violence Act, 34 U.S.C. 12361 (Supp. V 2017) (formerly 42 U.S.C. 13981) ................................................ 24

Education Amendments of 1972, Tit. IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ...................................................... 24

VI

Statutes--Continued:

Page

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.)..................................................... 6

18 U.S.C. 249(a)(2)(A)........................................................ 17 18 U.S.C. 249(c)(4) ............................................................. 17 34 U.S.C. 12291(b)(13)(A) (Supp. V 2017) ........................ 17

Miscellaneous:

Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1958)......................................................................... 17

In the Supreme Court of the United States

No. 18-107 R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES, INC.,

PETITIONER

v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-81a) is reported at 884 F.3d 560. The opinion and order of the district court granting summary judgment to petitioner (Pet. App. 82a-161a) is reported at 201 F. Supp. 3d 837. The amended opinion and order of the district court denying petitioner's motion to dismiss (Pet. App. 162a-187a) is reported at 100 F. Supp. 3d 594.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on March 7, 2018. On May 16, 2018, Justice Kagan extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including August 3, 2018, and the petition was filed on July 20, 2018. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

(1)

2

STATEMENT

1. a. Petitioner is a family-owned, for-profit corporation that operates funeral homes at several locations in Michigan. Pet. App. 90a. The principal owner, Thomas Rost, is a Christian who believes "`that God has called him to serve grieving people' and `that his purpose in life is to minister to the grieving.'" Id. at 6a (citation omitted). Petitioner's website includes a mission statement providing that its "highest priority is to honor God in all that we do as a company and as individuals," but petitioner, which is not affiliated with a specific church, hires employees and serves clients of all faiths. Ibid. (citation omitted); see id. at 6a-7a.

Petitioner has adopted a sex-specific dress code for its employees who interact with the public. Pet. App. 7a. The dress code requires male employees to wear suits and ties and female employees to wear skirts and business jackets. Ibid. In petitioner's view, "[m]aintaining a professional dress code that is not distracting to grieving families is an essential industry requirement that furthers their healing process." Id. at 198a; see id. at 91a, 140a, 196a; Pet. 3-4. Petitioner provides suits and ties for male employees and currently provides a clothing stipend to female employees. Pet. App. 7a-8a.1

Petitioner "administers its dress code based on [its] employees' biological sex, not based on their subjective gender identity." Pet. App. 198a. Rost, the principal owner, "`sincerely believes that the Bible teaches that a person's sex is an immutable God-given gift,' and that he would be `violating God's commands if he were to

1 At the time this suit was filed in September 2014, petitioner did not provide clothing or a clothing stipend to female employees. Pet. App. 7a. In October 2014, petitioner began providing female employees a clothing stipend. See id. at 7a-8a.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download