DETROIT (AP) — A Detroit-area funeral home has agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a lawsuit that led to a groundbreaking decision that protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment.
Aimee Stephens, 59, died weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court in June said she was covered by federal civil rights law.
Stephens worked as an embalmer and funeral home director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Garden City. She was fired in 2013 when she told her boss that she no longer wanted to be recognized as a man. She said she wanted to be known as Aimee and would report to work wearing a conservative skirt suit or dress.
Stephens’ boss said her appearance would be a distraction for grieving families.
The business is paying $130,000 to Stephens’ estate, plus $120,000 in legal costs and fees. U.S. District Judge Sean Cox approved the settlement Monday, The Detroit News reported.
Harris Homes will also begin providing clothing benefits to female employees, a benefit that had previously been available only to men, the newspaper reported.
- Posted December 02, 2020
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Funeral home settles lawsuit that led to major ruling

headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- This LA lawyer levels up legal protections in the video game industry
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Legal champions to receive Spirit of Excellence Award at 2026 ABA Midyear Meeting
- Fake Sullivan & Cromwell entities used by scammers should be dissolved, suit says
- Hackers gained access to ‘small number’ of attorney emails at Williams & Connolly, firm confirms
- Before joining Anderson Kill, judge was accused of rude behavior on bench, retaliatory threats in ethics case