CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

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

2020 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMar 22, 2026
Entity authorityQ65060154 ↗
Source-derived summary

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Aimee Stephens was a funeral home employee who had presented herself as male up until 2013. On July 31, 2013, she wrote to her employer, the Harris Funeral Homes group, so that they could be prepared for her decision to undergo gender reassignment surgery, telling them that after a vacation, she planned to return dressed in female attire that otherwise followed the employee handbook. She was fired shortly after the letter was sent, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helped to represent Stephens in court. The District Court ruled for the funeral homes, stating Title VII did not cover transgender people and that as a religious organization under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the company had a right to dismiss Stephens for non-conformity. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding Title VII did include protection for transgender people, which Harris Funeral Homes petitioned the Supreme Court to review. About a month before the Supreme Court decision, Stephens died from health complications. Representation of her case continued through her estate.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” as 2020 United States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2020, 1964, 2013—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Harris, Funeral and Homes can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as 2020 United States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q65060154. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2020, 1964 and 2013.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission primary sources, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission archive and Harris research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.