DETROIT — Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens when it fired her after she notified her employer that she would begin working openly as female because she is a transgender woman. The ruling affirms that transgender individuals are protected by federal sex discrimination laws, and that religious belief does not give employers the right to discriminate against them. Today’s decision reverses the lower court’s decision, which held that religious belief was sufficient to exempt the employer from anti-discrimination laws.

Learn more about the case.

John Knight, senior staff attorney with the LGBT & HIV Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, had the following response:

“Today’s decision is an exciting and important victory for transgender people and allied communities across the country. In too many workplaces around the country, coming out as trans is a fireable offense, as our client Aimee Stephens personally experienced. But this ruling affirms that that is illegal, setting an important precedent confirming that transgender people are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It also ensures that employers will not be able to use their religious beliefs against trans employees, ruling that there is no ‘right to discriminate’ in the workplace. We are thrilled for Aimee, and for all trans folks, to be able to announce this win today.”

The ACLU and ACLU of Michigan represent Aimee Stephens and intervened on her behalf last year in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s lawsuit against RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes.

Ms. Stephens had the following response:

“I pursued this case because no one should be fired from their job just for being who they are. I’m thrilled with the court’s decision.”

Learn more about the case here.

Read the Sixth Circuit’s decision here. 

The City of Detroit had the wrong man, and Walter Hicks knew it.

In 2014, the 57-year-old Hicks, a disabled Detroit homeowner who lives off of barely more than $15,000 a year in social-services benefits, went to the city municipal building to apply for a poverty exemption from his property tax bill. Although an appraisal of the fair-market value of the home estimated it to be worth about $9,000, an overinflated assessment by the City of Detroit in 2013 had bloated the supposed cash value of Hicks' home—to more than $40,000.

As a result of the $31,000 over-assessment, Hicks' tax bill stood at more than $1,600.

Walter Hicks tells the story of how he got stuck with an extra tax bill.

So Hicks, who doesn't drive and has to take three buses and a walk another mile to make the hour-long trip from his house to downtown Detroit, went to the municipal building for the exemption. As the injured back that made it impossible for him to work flared in excruciating pain, Hicks endured a 30-minute wait at the municipal building just to find out about how to get an exemption application.

Two months later, the city finally responded—by denying Hicks' application.

The reason? The city claimed that Hicks owned another piece of real estate. Problem was, he didn't own any other properties, just his small, over-assessed home on the city's west side.

The city had flagged the wrong Walter Hicks. But even when the city discovered its mistake, even after Hicks obtained the deed to the other property to prove that he wasn't that person (he and the other property owner shared a first and last name, but had different middle names), the City of Detroit continues to deny his application for a poverty exemption from his over-inflated property taxes.

Today, the city claims that Walter Hicks owes $1,866.63 for unpaid property taxes from tax year 2013 and earlier. The city placed Hicks in a payment plan for indigent homeowners that requires him to pay by 2016 all of his 2013 taxes, including fees and penalties and interest—even though the taxes were over-inflated in the first place.

However, Hicks is too poor to pay even under the payment plan.

More importantly—because his property should have never been so grossly over-assessed to begin with—he shouldn't have to.

"I just want to be treated fairly," says Hicks.

And he wants just as badly to see the tax foreclosure crisis end after watching it spread throughout his community like a plague: "I was embarrassed to see the foreclosure notice—and then I looked down my block. Almost everyone had one."

Photography by Emell Derra Adolphus.

Because the City of Detroit has failed to reassess the property value of homes since 2008, Detroit resident Walter Hicks pays property taxes equivalent to a $40,000 home for his $9,000 home.

“I was embarrassed to see the foreclosure notice—and then I looked down my block. Almost everyone had one.” -Walter Hicks, Detroit resident

VIEW MORE PHOTOS

By: Merissa Kovach, Policy Strategist

The right to vote is at risk for many in Michigan – and your state representative is to blame. Right now, they are poised to quickly pass dangerous legislation intended to restrict and suppress access to the ballot box.

House Bills 6046, 6047, and 6048 will require virtually all voters to present photo ID before casting their ballot on Election Day, making it especially difficult for eligible voters who are poor, elderly, people of color, and disabled to vote.

Voter identification laws are a part of an ongoing strategy to roll back decades of progress on voting rights.  Voter ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote, reduce participation, and stand in direct opposition to our country’s trend of including more Americans in the democratic process.

These laws are overly burdensome and have the potential to disenfranchise tens of thousands of registered Michigan voters who do not have, and in many instances, cannot obtain or afford to obtain photo identification for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. 

While there are some provisions in the bills that intend to make it easier for indigent people to obtain photo ID, those provisions are only helpful if those individuals – who are already lacking in resources – know exactly what to do and what hoops to jump through in advance.

Waiving the cost of a photo ID does not account for other significant costs that voters will have to pay, including transportation, waiting in line, time away from work or acquiring the underlying documents like a birth certificate. The practical effect of these bills will be to disenfranchise the vast majority of eligible voters who don’t have photo ID or show up on Election Day without it.

Supporters of these bills claim that voter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud, but those claims are unsubstantiated and overblown. Studies have shown, time and time again, that in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare.  There is no evidence that in-person impersonation voter fraud – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – is even a minor problem. A recent study found only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation incident since 2000, during which time over 1 billion ballots were cast in the U.S.

While many states move to modernize voting and increase access to the ballot, Michigan remains one of only a few states severely limiting the freedom of eligible citizens to register to vote and cast their ballot.

The House Elections and Ethics Committee is expected to hold a public hearing on these bills this week. Afterwards, the bills will go before the full Michigan House of Representatives. We urge you to call your lawmaker and ask them to reject voter suppression policies by casting their votes against HBs 6046, 6047, and 6048.

Rather than putting hurdles in the way of eligible voters, our lawmakers should support real solutions that would make Michigan elections more secure and modern such as online voter registration, no reason absentee voting, early voting, and same-day registration.

When people take the time and responsibility to exercise their right to vote, we need to guarantee that their votes are counted and their voices are heard.

Take action: Tell your representative to vote NO to House Bills 6046, 6047, and 6048.