Essay on R.G. & G.R Harris Funeral Home v. EEOC: Aimee Stephens Transgender Case

The R.G. & GR Harris Funeral Home v. EEOC transcription entails a case between Aimee Stephens and R.G. & G.R Harris Funeral Home. Stephens was employed by Harris Funeral Home as a funeral director and had a transgender issue that saw him being dismissed from work by his employer after Stephen's pursue a transition to his biological gender. Besides, Stephens was biologically male but mistakenly registered as a female. This identity affected how he could put on his workplace attire as it was a mandatory policy for every employee to dress according to his gender. Meanwhile, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission favored male gender by providing them with free clothes while forcing female gender to wear skirts and Business jackets. Disappointed by gender discrimination, Stephen filed a case and sued his employer company in a court of law.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

However, Harris funeral Home claims that gender discrimination and identity is exclusive in the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title VII. In his appeal, Harris Home alludes that according to title VII, perception is less applicable to people having cases like Stephens due to their biased gender issue. Besides, Harris Homes argues that being transgender is irrelevant and legal concerning the application of Title VII that was enacted in 1964, having biological exclusivity of female or male. Besides, Harris Home defends the case by adding that congress has vividly differentiated the classification of sex from transgender status identification of gender. Moreover, the defendant finalizes by saying that there will be no sex discrimination if it would treat any woman refusing to abide by their uniform policy as far as they are basing their ruling on Title VII.

Stephens claims that any decision made for terminating an employee`s contract as a result of their transgender is illegal as it involves sex stereotyping action concerning Title VII under-recognition of price water house court. Besides, Stephen asserts that there is no way an employee should comply with Title VII to instill discrimination against both men and women because of their respective gender.

Meanwhile, Stephens gains backup support from the professors in five law school. According to the professors, the action done to Stephens was inhumane and can severely harm transgender people. Moreover, they argue that the policies put in the workplace against transgender employees are purposely set for robbing and limiting access to such employees` opportunities. The professors also claim that the issue of compelling the employees with transgender issues will expose them to experiencing further problems such as shame, despair and loneliness. Unequivocally, my ruling prediction will be based on the professor's argument that the policies set on the workplace against the transgender individuals are discriminatory. Thus, such policies negating the transgender individual should be excluded and in errand of people having cases like Stephens.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the best alternative to ruling the Stephens case against Harris Home will be by thorough investigation and understanding of transgender rights. Since it is clear that their rights are always in favor of their situation, there is a good reason for ruling in the indulgence of Stephen safe him from facing further issues like depression due to job loss. Therefore, the case on Stephens and R.G & G.R Harris Funeral Home should be awarded to Stephen and should be adequately compensated due to deprivation of his rights and loosing of job.