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

Filing 45

ORDER OVERRULING 36 DOCKET ERROR- WRONG EVENT USED - DOCUMENT IS DEFENDANT R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES, INC.S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATES ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EEOCS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION to Set Aside Plaintiff's Objections To The Magistrates Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part EEOCs Motion For Protective Order filed by R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-13710

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes,
Inc.,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER
OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRAND’S 9/24/15 DISCOVERY ORDER
In this action, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“E.E.O.C.”) asserts Title
VII claims against Defendant R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. (“the Funeral Home”).
The matter is currently before the Court on the Funeral Home’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand’s September 24, 2015 “Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part EEOC’s
Motion For Protective Order.” (Docket Entry No. 34).
As the Funeral Home acknowledges, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), in considering the
Funeral Home’s objections to the magistrate judge’s discovery order, this Court must “modify or
set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s order and the Funeral Home’s objections to it,
this Court is convinced that the order is neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law” and
ORDERS that the order shall remain as issued.
Although the magistrate judge correctly determined that this Court previously “rejected
1

the EEOC’s claim that [the Funeral Home] violated Title VII by firing Stephens ‘because she is
transgender’ and/or ‘because of Stephens’ transition from male to female,’” (see R&R at 2) and
appropriately considered the nature of the Title VII termination claim that remains viable in this
action in making his discovery rulings, the Funeral Home appears to fundamentally
misunderstand the claims and theories that remain viable in this action. (See R&R at 2). The
Funeral Home asserts, for example, that claims based on the above theories “remain in a kind of
legal limbo,” and therefore, the Funeral Home’s discovery requests should be deemed relevant.
The Court disagrees. The Court clarifies here that this Court has already rejected the
EEOC’s theory that the Funeral Home’s decision to fire Stephens violated Title VII because it
was based on Stephens’ status as a transgender person or the fact that Stephens was transitioning
from male to female.
On September 25, 2014, the EEOC filed this action against the Funeral Home. The
EEOC’s original complaint alleged, in pertinent part, as follows in its “Statement of Claims”
section:
14.

Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Garden City,
Michigan facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1), by terminating Stephens because of sex.

15.

Defendant Employer’s decision to fire Stephens was motivated by sexbased considerations. Specifically, Defendant Employer fired Stephens
because Stephens is transgender, because of Stephens’s transition from
male to female, and/or because Stephens did not conform to the Defendant
Employer’s sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes.

....
17.

Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Garden City,
Michigan facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1), by providing a clothing allowance/work clothes to male
employees but failing to provide such assistance to female employees
because of sex.

2

(Docket Entry No. 1 at 3-4).
In this Court’s view, the EEOC asserted two different Title VII claims against the
Funeral Home. First, the EEOC alleged that the Funeral Home violated Title VII by firing
Stephens: 1) because Stephens is transgender; 2) because of Stephens’s transition from male to
female; and 3) because Stephens did not conform to the Funeral Home’s sex or gender-based
preferences, expectations, or stereotypes. (Id.). That is, the EEOC sought to prove that the
Funeral Home’s decision to fire Stephens violated Title VII based on three different theories.
Second, the EEOC alleged that the Funeral Home violated Title VII by “providing a
clothing allowance/work clothes to male employees but failing to provide such assistance to
female employees.”
The Funeral Home challenged the first Title VII claim alone in its Motion to Dismiss.
The Funeral Home asked the Court to rule that, as to the claim challenging Stephens’s
termination as violative of Title VII, the EEOC failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
In its Opinion & Order (Docket Entry No. 13), this Court denied the Funeral Home’s
Motion to Dismiss. In doing so, however, this Court clearly rejected two of the three theories
that this claim was based upon. That is, this Court rejected the EEOC’s theory that the Funeral
Home’s decision to fire Stephens violated Title VII because it was based on Stephens’ status as a
transgender person or the fact that Stephens was transitioning from male to female. The Court
ruled, however, that the EEOC could pursue the Title VII claim based upon the theory that
Stephens’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes was the driving force behind the termination.
Thus, this Court concluded “that the EEOC’s complaint states a claim as to Stephen’s

3

termination.” (Id. at 2).
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: November 25, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
November 25, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Kelly Winslow for Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager Generalist

4