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, Sean F. Cox

Inc., 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

2:14-cv-13710-SFC-DRG Doc # 45 Filed 11/25/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 571
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

2:14-cv-13710-SFC-DRG Doc # 45 Filed 11/25/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 572
(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

2:14-cv-13710-SFC-DRG Doc # 45 Filed 11/25/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 573
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

2:14-cv-13710-SFC-DRG Doc # 45 Filed 11/25/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 574