Full opinion text
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Aimee Stephens (formerly known as Anthony Stephens) was born biologically male. While living and presenting as a man, she worked as a funeral director at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. ("the Funeral Home"), a closely held for-profit corporation that operates three funeral homes in Michigan. Stephens was terminated from the Funeral Home by its owner and operator, Thomas Rost, shortly after Stephens informed Rost that she intended to transition from male to female and would represent herself and dress as a woman while at work. Stephens filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which investigated Stephens's allegations that she had been terminated as a result of unlawful sex discrimination. During the course of its investigation, the EEOC learned that the Funeral Home provided its male public-facing employees with clothing that complied with the company's dress code while female public-facing employees received no such allowance. The EEOC subsequently brought suit against the Funeral Home in which the EEOC charged the Funeral Home with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") by (1) terminating Stephens's employment on the basis of her transgender or transitioning status and her refusal to conform to sex-based stereotypes; and (2) administering a discriminatory-clothing-allowance policy. The parties submitted dueling motions for summary judgment. The EEOC argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both of its claims. For its part, the Funeral Home argued that it did not violate Title VII by requiring Stephens to comply with a sex-specific dress code that it asserts equally burdens male and female employees, and, in the alternative, that Title VII should not be enforced against the Funeral Home because requiring the Funeral Home to employ Stephens while she dresses and represents herself as a woman would constitute an unjustified substantial burden upon Rost's (and thereby the Funeral Home's) sincerely held religious beliefs, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). As to the EEOC's discriminatory-clothing-allowance claim, the Funeral Home argued that Sixth Circuit case law precludes the EEOC from bringing this claim in a complaint that arose out of Stephens's original charge of discrimination because the Funeral Home could not reasonably expect a clothing-allowance claim to emerge from an investigation into Stephens's termination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Funeral Home on both claims. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that (1) the Funeral Home engaged in unlawful discrimination against Stephens on the basis of her sex; (2) the Funeral Home has not established that applying Title VII's proscriptions against sex discrimination to the Funeral Home would substantially burden Rost's religious exercise, and therefore the Funeral Home is not entitled to a defense under RFRA; (3) even if Rost's religious exercise were substantially burdened, the EEOC has established that enforcing Title VII is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling interest in eradicating workplace discrimination against Stephens; and (4) the EEOC may bring a discriminatory-clothing-allowance claim in this case because such an investigation into the Funeral Home's clothing-allowance policy was reasonably expected to grow out of the original charge of sex discrimination that Stephens submitted to the EEOC. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment on both the unlawful-termination and discriminatory-clothing-allowance claims, GRANT summary judgment to the EEOC on its unlawful-termination claim, and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was "assigned male at birth," joined the Funeral Home as an apprentice on October 1, 2007 and served as a Funeral Director/Embalmer at the Funeral Home from April 2008 until August 2013. R. 51-18 (Stephens Dep. at 49-51) (Page ID #817); R. 61 (Def.'s Counter Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 10) (Page ID #1828). During the course of her employment at the Funeral Home, Stephens presented as a man and used her then-legal name, William Anthony Beasley Stephens. R. 51-18 (Stephens Dep. at 47) (Page ID #816); R. 61 (Def.'s Counter Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 15) (Page ID #1829). The Funeral Home is a closely held for-profit corporation. R. 55 (Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶ 1) (Page ID #1683). Thomas Rost ("Rost"), who has been a Christian for over sixty-five years, owns 95.4% of the company and operates its three funeral home locations. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8, 17 (Page ID #1684-85); R. 54-2 (Rost Aff. ¶ 2) (Page ID #1326). Rost proclaims "that God has called him to serve grieving people" and "that his purpose in life is to minister to the grieving." R. 55 (Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶ 31) (Page ID #1688). To that end, the Funeral Home's website contains a mission statement that states that the Funeral Home's "highest priority is to honor God in all that we do as a company and as individuals" and includes a verse of scripture on the bottom of the mission statement webpage. Id. ¶¶ 21-22 (Page ID #1686). The Funeral Home itself, however, is not affiliated with a church; it does not claim to have a religious purpose in its articles of incorporation; it is open every day, including Christian holidays; and it serves clients of all faiths. R. 61 (Def.'s Counter Statement of Facts ¶¶ 25-27; 29-30) (Page ID #1832-34). "Employees have worn Jewish head coverings when holding a Jewish funeral service." Id. ¶ 31 (Page ID #1834). Although the Funeral Home places the Bible, "Daily Bread" devotionals, and "Jesus Cards" in public places within the funeral homes, the Funeral Home does not decorate its rooms with "visible religious figures ... to avoid offending people of different religions." Id. ¶¶ 33-34 (Page ID #1834). Rost hires employees belonging to any faith or no faith to work at the Funeral Home, and he "does not endorse or consider himself to endorse his employees' beliefs or non-employment-related activities." Id. ¶¶ 37-38 (Page ID #1835). The Funeral Home requires its public-facing male employees to wear suits and ties and its public-facing female employees to wear skirts and business jackets. R. 55 (Def.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 51) (Page ID #1691). The Funeral Home provides all male employees who interact with clients, including funeral directors, with free suits and ties, and the Funeral Home replaces suits as needed. R. 61 (Def.'s Counter Statement of Disputed Facts ¶¶ 42, 48) (Page ID #1836-37). All told, the Funeral Home spends approximately $470 per full-time employee per year and $235 per part-time employee per year on clothing for male employees. Id. ¶ 55 (Page ID #1839). Until October 2014-after the EEOC filed this suit-the Funeral Home did not provide its female employees with any sort of clothing or clothing allowance. Id. ¶ 54 (Page ID #1838-39). Beginning in October 2014, the Funeral Home began providing its public-facing female employees with an annual clothing stipend ranging from $75 for part-time employees to $150 for full-time employees. Id. ¶ 54 (Page ID #1838-39). Rost contends that the Funeral Home would provide suits to all funeral directors, regardless of their sex, id. , but it has not employed a female funeral director since Rost's grandmother ceased working for the organization around 1950, R. 54-2 (Rost Aff. ¶¶ 52, 54) (Page ID #1336-37). According to Rost, the Funeral Home has received only one application from a woman for a funeral director position in the thirty-five years that Rost has operated the Funeral Home, and the female applicant was deemed not qualified. Id. ¶¶ 2, 53 (Page ID #1326, 1336). On July 31, 2013, Stephens provided Rost with a letter stating that she has struggled with "a gender identity disorder" her "entire life," and informing Rost that she has "decided to become the person that [her] mind already is." R. 51-2 (Stephens Letter at 1) (Page ID #643). The letter stated that Stephens "intend[ed] to have sex reassignment surgery," and explained that "[t]he first step [she] must take is to live and work full-time as a woman for one year." Id. To that end, Stephens stated that she would return from her vacation on August 26, 2013, "as [her] true self, Amiee [sic] Australia Stephens, in appropriate business attire." Id. After presenting the letter to Rost, Stephens postponed her vacation and continued to work for the next two weeks. R. 68 (Reply to Def.'s Counter Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute at 1) (Page ID #2122). Then, just before Stephens left for her intended vacation, Rost fired her. R. 61 (Def.'s Counter Statement of Disputed Facts ¶¶ 10-11) (Page ID #1828). Rost said, "this is not going to work out," and offered Stephens a severance agreement if she "agreed not to say anything or do anything." R. 54-15 (Stephens Dep. at 75-76) Page ID #1455; R. 63-5 (Rost Dep. at 126-27) Page ID #1974. Stephens refused. Id. Rost testified that he fired Stephens because "he was no longer going to represent himself as a man. He wanted to dress as a woman." R. 51-3 (Rost 30(b)(6) Dep. at 135-36) (Page ID #667). Rost avers that he "sincerely believe[s] that the Bible teaches that a person's sex is an immutable God-given gift," and that he would be "violating God's commands if [he] were to permit one of [the Funeral Home's] funeral directors to deny their sex while acting as a representative of [the] organization" or if he were to "permit one of [the Funeral Home's] male funeral directors to wear the uniform for female funeral directors while at work." R. 54-2 (Rost Aff. ¶¶ 42-43, 45) (Page ID #1334-35). In particular, Rost believes that authorizing or paying for a male funeral director to wear the uniform for female funeral directors would render him complicit "in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift." Id. ¶¶ 43, 45 (Page ID #1334-35). After her employment was terminated, Stephens filed a sex-discrimination charge with the EEOC, alleging that "[t]he only explanation" she received from "management" for her termination was that "the public would [not] be accepting of [her] transition." R. 63-2 (Charge of Discrimination at 1) (Page ID #1952). She further noted that throughout her "entire employment" at the Funeral Home, there were "no other female Funeral Director/Embalmers." Id. During the course of investigating Stephens's allegations, the EEOC learned from another employee that the Funeral Home did not provide its public-facing female employees with suits or a clothing stipend. R. 54-24 (Memo for File at 9) (Page ID #1513). The EEOC issued a letter of determination on June 5, 2014, in which the EEOC stated that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Funeral Home "discharged [Stephens] due to her sex and gender identity, female, in violation of Title VII" and "discriminated against its female employees by providing male employees with a clothing benefit which was denied to females, in violation of Title VII." R. 63-4 (Determination at 1) (Page ID #1968). The EEOC and the Funeral Home were unable to resolve this dispute through an informal conciliation process, and the EEOC filed a complaint against the Funeral Home in the district court on September 25, 2014. R. 1 (Complaint) (Page ID #1-9). The Funeral Home moved to dismiss the EEOC's action for failure to state a claim. The district court denied the Funeral Home's motion, but it narrowed the basis upon which the EEOC could pursue its unlawful-termination claim. EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. , 100 F.Supp.3d 594, 599, 603 (E.D. Mich. 2015). In particular, the district court agreed with the Funeral Home that transgender status is not a protected trait under Title VII, and therefore held that the EEOC could not sue for alleged discrimination against Stephens based solely on her transgender and/or transitioning status. See id. at 598-99. Nevertheless, the district court determined that the EEOC had adequately stated a claim for discrimination against Stephens based on the claim that she was fired because of her failure to conform to the Funeral Home's "sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes." Id. at 599 (quoting R. 1 (Compl. ¶ 15) (Page ID #4-5) ). The parties then cross-moved for summary judgment. EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. , 201 F.Supp.3d 837, 840 (E.D. Mich. 2016). With regard to the Funeral Home's decision to terminate Stephens's employment, the district court determined that there was "direct evidence to support a claim of employment discrimination" against Stephens on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII. Id. at 850. However, the court nevertheless found in the Funeral Home's favor because it concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") precludes the EEOC from enforcing Title VII against the Funeral Home, as doing so would substantially burden Rost and the Funeral Home's religious exercise and the EEOC had failed to demonstrate that enforcing Title VII was the least restrictive way to achieve its presumably compelling interest "in ensuring that Stephens is not subject to gender stereotypes in the workplace in terms of required clothing at the Funeral home." Id. at 862-63. Based on its narrow conception of the EEOC's compelling interest in bringing the claim, the district court concluded that the EEOC could have achieved its goals by proposing that the Funeral Home impose a gender-neutral dress code. Id. The EEOC's failure to consider such an accommodation was, according to the district court, fatal to its case. Id. at 863. Separately, the district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the EEOC's discriminatory-clothing-allowance claim because, under longstanding Sixth Circuit precedent, the EEOC may pursue in a Title VII lawsuit only claims that are reasonably expected to grow out of the complaining party's-in this case, Stephens's-original charge. Id. at 864-70. The district court entered final judgment on all counts in the Funeral Home's favor on August 18, 2016, R. 77 (J.) (Page ID #2235), and the EEOC filed a timely notice of appeal shortly thereafter, see R. 78 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID #2236-37). Stephens moved to intervene in this appeal on January 26, 2017, after expressing concern that changes in policy priorities within the U.S. government might prevent the EEOC from fully representing Stephens's interests in this case. See D.E. 19 (Mot. to Intervene as Plaintiff-Appellant at 5-7). The Funeral Home opposed Stephens's motion on the grounds that the motion was untimely and Stephens had failed to show that the EEOC would not represent her interests adequately. D.E. 21 (Mem. in Opp'n at 2-11). We determined that Stephens's request was timely given that she previously "had no reason to question whether the EEOC would continue to adequately represent her interests" and granted Stephens's motion to intervene on March 27, 2017. D.E. 28-2 (Order at 2). We further determined that Stephens's intervention would not prejudice the Funeral Home because Stephens stated in her briefing that she did not intend to raise new issues. Id. Six groups of amici curiae also submitted briefing in this case. II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review "We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo." Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep't , 581 F.3d 383, 390 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin , 538 F.3d 402, 412 (6th Cir. 2008) ). Summary judgment is warranted when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV . P. 56(a). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, "we view all facts and any inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Risch , 581 F.3d at 390 (citation omitted). We also review all "legal conclusions supporting [the district court's] grant of summary judgment de novo ." Doe v. Salvation Army in U.S. , 531 F.3d 355, 357 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). B. Unlawful Termination Claim Title VII prohibits employers from "discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). "[A] plaintiff can establish a prima facie case [of unlawful discrimination] by presenting direct evidence of discriminatory intent." Nguyen v. City of Cleveland , 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins , 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (plurality opinion) ). "[A] facially discriminatory employment policy or a corporate decision maker's express statement of a desire to remove employees in the protected group is direct evidence of discriminatory intent." Id. (citation omitted). Once a plaintiff establishes that "the prohibited classification played a motivating part in the [adverse] employment decision," the employer then bears the burden of proving that it would have terminated the plaintiff "even if it had not been motivated by impermissible discrimination." Id. (citing, inter alia , Price Waterhouse , 490 U.S. at 244-45, 109 S.Ct. 1775 ). Here, the district court correctly determined that Stephens was fired because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes, in violation of Title VII. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. , 201 F.Supp.3d at 850 ("[W]hile this Court does not often see cases where there is direct evidence to support a claim of employment discrimination, it appears to exist here."). The district court erred, however, in finding that Stephens could not alternatively pursue a claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her transgender and transitioning status. Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex, and thus the EEOC should have had the opportunity to prove that the Funeral Home violated Title VII by firing Stephens because she is transgender and transitioning from male to female. 1. Discrimination on the Basis of Sex Stereotypes In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins , 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), a plurality of the Supreme Court explained that Title VII's proscription of discrimination " 'because of ... sex' ... mean[s] that gender must be irrelevant to employment decisions." Id. at 240, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (emphasis in original). In enacting Title VII, the plurality reasoned, "Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. at 251, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (quoting Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart , 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) ). The Price Waterhouse plurality, along with two concurring Justices, therefore determined that a female employee who faced an adverse employment decision because she failed to "walk ... femininely, talk ... femininely, dress ... femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, [or] wear jewelry," could properly state a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII-even though she was not discriminated against for being a woman per se , but instead for failing to be womanly enough. See id. at 235, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion) (quoting Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse , 618 F.Supp. 1109, 1117 (D.D.C. 1985) ); id. at 259, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (White, J., concurring); id. at 272, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Based on Price Waterhouse , we determined that "discrimination based on a failure to conform to stereotypical gender norms" was no less prohibited under Title VII than discrimination based on "the biological differences between men and women." Smith v. City of Salem , 378 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2004). And we found no "reason to exclude Title VII coverage for non sex-stereotypical behavior simply because the person is a transsexual." Id. at 575. Thus, in Smith , we held that a transgender plaintiff (born male) who suffered adverse employment consequences after "he began to express a more feminine appearance and manner on a regular basis" could file an employment discrimination suit under Title VII, id. at 572, because such "discrimination would not [have] occur[red] but for the victim's sex," id. at 574. As we reasoned in Smith , Title VII proscribes discrimination both against women who "do not wear dresses or makeup" and men who do. Id. Under any circumstances, "[s]ex stereotyping based on a person's gender non-conforming behavior is impermissible discrimination." Id. at 575. Here, Rost's decision to fire Stephens because Stephens was "no longer going to represent himself as a man" and "wanted to dress as a woman," see R. 51-3 (Rost 30(b)(6) Dep. at 135-36) (Page ID #667), falls squarely within the ambit of sex-based discrimination that Price Waterhouse and Smith forbid. For its part, the Funeral Home has failed to establish a non-discriminatory basis for Stephens's termination, and Rost admitted that he did not fire Stephens for any performance-related issues. See R. 51-3 (Rost 30(b)(6) Dep. at 109, 136) (Page ID #663, 667). We therefore agree with the district court that the Funeral Home discriminated against Stephens on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII. The Funeral Home nevertheless argues that it has not violated Title VII because sex stereotyping is barred only when "the employer's reliance on stereotypes ... result[s] in disparate treatment of employees because they are either male or female." Appellee Br. at 31. According to the Funeral Home, an employer does not engage in impermissible sex stereotyping when it requires its employees to conform to a sex-specific dress code-as it purportedly did here by requiring Stephens to abide by the dress code designated for the Funeral Home's male employees-because such a policy "impose[s] equal burdens on men and women," and thus does not single out an employee for disparate treatment based on that employee's sex. Id. at 12. In support of its position, the Funeral Home relies principally on Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co. , 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), and Barker v. Taft Broadcasting Co. , 549 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1977). Jespersen held that a sex-specific grooming code that imposed different but equally burdensome requirements on male and female employees would not violate Title VII. See 444 F.3d at 1109-11 (holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how a grooming code that required women to wear makeup and banned men from wearing makeup was a violation of Title VII because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing that this sex-specific makeup policy was "more burdensome for women than for men"). Barker , for its part, held that a sex-specific grooming code that was enforced equally as to male and female employees would not violate Title VII. See 549 F.2d at 401 (holding that a grooming code that established different hair-length limits for male and female employees did not violate Title VII because failure to comply with the code resulted in the same consequences for men and women). For three reasons, the Funeral Home's reliance on these cases is misplaced. First, the central issue in Jespersen and Barker -whether certain sex-specific appearance requirements violate Title VII-is not before this court. We are not considering, in this case, whether the Funeral Home violated Title VII by requiring men to wear pant suits and women to wear skirt suits. Our question is instead whether the Funeral Home could legally terminate Stephens, notwithstanding that she fully intended to comply with the company's sex-specific dress code, simply because she refused to conform to the Funeral Home's notion of her sex. When the Funeral Home's actions are viewed in the proper context, no reasonable jury could believe that Stephens was not "target[ed] ... for disparate treatment" and that "no sex stereotype factored into [the Funeral Home's] employment decision." See Appellee Br. at 19-20. Second, even if we would permit certain sex-specific dress codes in a case where the issue was properly raised, we would not rely on either Jespersen or Barker to do so. Barker was decided before Price Waterhouse , and it in no way anticipated the Court's recognition that Title VII "strike[s] at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Price Waterhouse , 490 U.S. at 251, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality) (quoting Manhart , 435 U.S. at 707 n.13, 98 S.Ct. 1370 ). Rather, according to Barker , "[w]hen Congress makes it unlawful for an employer to 'discriminate ... on the basis of ... sex ...', without further explanation of its meaning, we should not readily infer that it meant something different than what the concept of discrimination has traditionally meant." 549 F.2d at 401-02 (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Gilbert , 429 U.S. 125, 145, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976), superseded by statute , Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076, 52 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), as recognized in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 463 U.S. 85, 89, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) ). Of course, this is precisely the sentiment that Price Waterhouse "eviscerated" when it recognized that "Title VII's reference to 'sex' encompasses both the biological differences between men and women, and gender discrimination, that is, discrimination based on a failure to conform to stereotypical gender norms." Smith , 378 F.3d at 573 (citing Price Waterhouse , 490 U.S. at 251, 109 S.Ct. 1775 ). Indeed, Barker 's incompatibility with Price Waterhouse may explain why this court has not cited Barker since Price Waterhouse was decided. As for Jespersen , that Ninth Circuit case is irreconcilable with our decision in Smith . Critical to Jespersen 's holding was the notion that the employer's "grooming standards," which required all female bartenders to wear makeup (and prohibited males from doing so), did not on their face violate Title VII because they did "not require [the plaintiff] to conform to a stereotypical image that would objectively impede her ability to perform her job." 444 F.3d at 1113. We reached the exact opposite conclusion in Smith , as we explained that requiring women to wear makeup does, in fact, constitute improper sex stereotyping. 378 F.3d at 574 ("After Price Waterhouse , an employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or makeup, is engaging in sex discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim's sex."). And more broadly, our decision in Smith forecloses the Jespersen court's suggestion that sex stereotyping is permissible so long as the required conformity does not "impede [an employee's] ability to perform her job," Jespersen , 444 F.3d at 1113, as the Smith plaintiff did not and was not required to allege that being expected to adopt a more masculine appearance and manner interfered with his job performance. Jespersen 's incompatibility with Smith may explain why it has never been endorsed (or even cited) by this circuit-and why it should not be followed now. Finally, the Funeral Home misreads binding precedent when it suggests that sex stereotyping violates Title VII only when "the employer's sex stereotyping resulted in 'disparate treatment of men and women.' " Appellee Br. at 18 (quoting Price Waterhouse , 490 U.S. at 251, 109 S.Ct. 1775 ). This interpretation of Title VII cannot be squared with our holding in Smith . There, we did not ask whether transgender persons transitioning from male to female were treated differently than transgender persons transitioning from female to male. Rather, we considered whether a transgender person was being discriminated against based on "his failure to conform to sex stereotypes concerning how a man should look and behave." Smith , 378 F.3d at 572. It is apparent from both Price Waterhouse and Smith that an employer engages in unlawful discrimination even if it expects both biologically male and female employees to conform to certain notions of how each should behave. See Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 123, No. 15-3775, 2018 WL 1040820 (2d Cir. Feb. 26, 2018) (en banc) (plurality) ("[T]he employer in Price Waterhouse could not have defended itself by claiming that it fired a gender-nonconforming man as well as a gender-non-conforming woman any more than it could persuasively argue that two wrongs make a right."). In short, the Funeral Home's sex-specific dress code does not preclude liability under Title VII. Even if the Funeral Home's dress code does not itself violate Title VII-an issue that is not before this court-the Funeral Home may not rely on its policy to combat the charge that it engaged in improper sex stereotyping when it fired Stephens for wishing to appear or behave in a manner that contradicts the Funeral Home's perception of how she should appear or behave based on her sex. Because the EEOC has presented unrefuted evidence that unlawful sex stereotyping was "at least a motivating factor in the [Funeral Home's] actions," see White v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth. , 429 F.3d 232, 238 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp. , 176 F.3d 921, 926 (6th Cir. 1999) ), and because we reject the Funeral Home's affirmative defenses (see Section II.B.3, infra ), we GRANT summary judgment to the EEOC on its sex discrimination claim. 2. Discrimination on the Basis of Transgender/Transitioning Status We also hold that discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status violates Title VII. The district court rejected this theory of liability at the motion-to-dismiss stage, holding that "transgender or transsexual status is currently not a protected class under Title VII." R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. , 100 F.Supp.3d at 598. The EEOC and Stephens argue that the district court's determination was erroneous because Title VII protects against sex stereotyping and "transgender discrimination is based on the non-conformance of an individual's gender identity and appearance with sex-based norms or expectations"; therefore, "discrimination because of an individual's transgender status is always based on gender-stereotypes: the stereotype that individuals will conform their appearance and behavior-whether their dress, the name they use, or other ways they present themselves-to the sex assigned them at birth." Appellant Br. at 24; see also Intervenor Br. at 10-15. The Funeral Home, in turn, argues that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on a person's transgender or transitioning status because "sex," for the purposes of Title VII, "refers to a binary characteristic for which there are only two classifications, male and female," and "which classification arises in a person based on their chromosomally driven physiology and reproductive function." Appellee Br. at 26. According to the Funeral Home, transgender status refers to "a person's self-assigned 'gender identity' " rather than a person's sex, and therefore such a status is not protected under Title VII. Id. at 26-27. For two reasons, the EEOC and Stephens have the better argument. First, it is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee's status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee's sex. The Seventh Circuit's method of "isolat[ing] the significance of the plaintiff's sex to the employer's decision" to determine whether Title VII has been triggered illustrates this point. See Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. of Ind. , 853 F.3d 339, 345 (7th Cir. 2017). In Hively , the Seventh Circuit determined that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation-a different question than the issue before this court-by asking whether the plaintiff, a self-described lesbian, would have been fired "if she had been a man married to a woman (or living with a woman, or dating a woman) and everything else had stayed the same." Id. If the answer to that question is no, then the plaintiff has stated a "paradigmatic sex discrimination" claim. See id. Here, we ask whether Stephens would have been fired if Stephens had been a woman who sought to comply with the women's dress code. The answer quite obviously is no. This, in and of itself, confirms that Stephens's sex impermissibly affected Rost's decision to fire Stephens. The court's analysis in Schroer v. Billington , 577 F.Supp.2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008), provides another useful way of framing the inquiry. There, the court noted that an employer who fires an employee because the employee converted from Christianity to Judaism has discriminated against the employee "because of religion," regardless of whether the employer feels any animus against either Christianity or Judaism, because "[d]iscrimination 'because of religion' easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion.'" Id. at 306 (emphasis in original). By the same token, discrimination "because of sex" inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex. See id. at 307-08. Here, there is evidence that Rost at least partially based his employment decision on Stephens's desire to change her sex: Rost justified firing Stephens by explaining that Rost "sincerely believes that 'the Bible teaches that a person's sex (whether male or female) is an immutable God-given gift and that it is wrong for a person to deny his or her God-given sex,' " and "the Bible teaches that it is wrong for a biological male to deny his sex by dressing as a woman." R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. , 201 F.Supp.3d at 848 (quoting R. 55 (Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶ 28) (Page ID #1687); R. 53-3 (Rost 30(b)(6) Dep. ¶ 44) (Page ID #936) ). As amici point out in their briefing, such statements demonstrate that "Ms. Stephens's sex necessarily factored into the decision to fire her." Equality Ohio Br. at 12; cf. Hively , 853 F.3d at 359 (Flaum, J., concurring) (arguing discrimination against a female employee because she is a lesbian is necessarily "motivated, in part, by ... the employee's sex" because the employer is discriminating against the employee "because she is (A) a woman who is (B) sexually attracted to women"). The Funeral Home argues that Schroer 's analogy is "structurally flawed" because, unlike religion, a person's sex cannot be changed; it is, instead, a biologically immutable trait. Appellee Br. at 30. We need not decide that issue; even if true, the Funeral Home's point is immaterial. As noted above, the Supreme Court made clear in Price Waterhouse that Title VII requires "gender [to] be irrelevant to employment decisions." 490 U.S. at 240, 109 S.Ct. 1775. Gender (or sex) is not being treated as "irrelevant to employment decisions" if an employee's attempt or desire to change his or her sex leads to an adverse employment decision. Second, discrimination against transgender persons necessarily implicates Title VII's proscriptions against sex stereotyping. As we recognized in Smith , a transgender person is someone who "fails to act and/or identify with his or her gender"-i.e., someone who is inherently "gender non-conforming." 378 F.3d at 575 ; see also id. at 568 (explaining that transgender status is characterized by the American Psychiatric Association as "a disjunction between an individual's sexual organs and sexual identity"). Thus, an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of transgender status without imposing its stereotypical notions of how sexual organs and gender identity ought to align. There is no way to disaggregate discrimination on the basis of transgender status from discrimination on the basis of gender non-conformity, and we see no reason to try. We did not expressly hold in Smith that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is unlawful, though the opinion has been read to say as much-both by this circuit and others. In G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board , 654 Fed.Appx. 606 (4th Cir. 2016), for instance, the Fourth Circuit described Smith as holding "that discrimination against a transgender individual based on that person's transgender status is discrimination because of sex under federal civil rights statutes." Id. at 607. And in Dodds v. United States Department of Education , 845 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2016), we refused to stay "a preliminary injunction ordering the school district to treat an eleven-year old transgender girl as a female and permit her to use the girls' restroom" because, among other things, the school district failed to show that it would likely succeed on the merits. Id. at 220-21. In so holding, we cited Smith as evidence that this circuit's "settled law" prohibits "[s]ex stereotyping based on a person's gender non-conforming behavior," id. at 221 (second quote quoting Smith , 378 F.3d at 575 ), and then pointed to out-of-circuit cases for the propositions that "[a] person is defined as transgender precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes," id. (citing Glenn v. Brumby , 663 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011) ), and "[t]he weight of authority establishes that discrimination based on transgender status is already prohibited by the language of federal civil rights statutes," id. (quoting G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd. , 822 F.3d 709, 729 (4th Cir.) (Davis, J., concurring), cert. granted in part , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 369, 196 L.Ed.2d 283 (2016), and vacated and remanded , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1239, 197 L.Ed.2d 460 (2017) ). Such references support what we now directly hold: Title VII protects transgender persons because of their transgender or transitioning status, because transgender or transitioning status constitutes an inherently gender non-conforming trait. The Funeral Home raises several arguments against this interpretation of Title VII, none of which we find persuasive. First, the Funeral Home contends that the Congress enacting Title VII understood "sex" to refer only to a person's "physiology and reproductive role," and not a person's "self-assigned 'gender identity.' " Appellee Br. at 25-26. But the drafters' failure to anticipate that Title VII would cover transgender status is of little interpretive value, because "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc. , 523 U.S. 75, 79, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) ; see also Zarda , 883 F.3d at 113-16 (majority opinion) (rejecting the argument that Title VII was not originally intended to protect employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in part because the same argument "could also be said of multiple forms of discrimination that are [now] indisputably prohibited by Title VII ... [but] were initially believed to fall outside the scope of Title VII's prohibition," such as "sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims"). And in any event, Smith and Price Waterhouse preclude an interpretation of Title VII that reads "sex" to mean only individuals' "chromosomally driven physiology and reproductive function." See Appellee Br. at 26. Indeed, we criticized the district court in Smith for "relying on a series of pre- Price Waterhouse cases from other federal appellate courts holding that transsexuals, as a class, are not entitled to Title VII protection because 'Congress had a narrow view of sex in mind' and 'never considered nor intended that [Title VII] apply to anything other than the traditional concept of sex.' " 378 F.3d at 572 (quoting Ulane v. E. Airlines, Inc. , 742 F.2d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1984) ) (alteration in original). According to Smith , such a limited view of Title VII's protections had been "eviscerated by Price Waterhouse ." Id. at 573, 109 S.Ct. 1775. The Funeral Home's attempt to resurrect the reasoning of these earlier cases thus runs directly counter to Smith 's holding. In a related argument, the Funeral Home notes that both biologically male and biologically female persons may consider themselves transgender, such that transgender status is not unique to one biological sex. Appellee Br. at 27-28. It is true, of course, that an individual's biological sex does not dictate her transgender status; the two traits are not coterminous. But a trait need not be exclusive to one sex to nevertheless be a function of sex. As the Second Circuit explained in Zarda , Title VII does not ask whether a particular sex is discriminated against; it asks whether a particular "individual " is discriminated against "because of such individual's ... sex." Taking individuals as the unit of analysis, the question is not whether discrimination is borne only by men or only by women or even by both men and women; instead, the question is whether an individual is discriminated against because of his or her sex. 883 F.3d at 123 n.23 (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) ). Because an employer cannot discriminate against an employee for being transgender without considering that employee's biological sex, discrimination on the basis of transgender status necessarily entails discrimination on the basis of sex-no matter what sex the employee was born or wishes to be. By the same token, an employer need not discriminate based on a trait common to all men or women to violate Title VII. After all, a subset of both women and men decline to wear dresses or makeup, but discrimination against any woman on this basis would constitute sex discrimination under Price Waterhouse . See Hively , 853 F.3d at 346 n.3 ("[T]he Supreme Court has made it clear that a policy need not affect every woman [or every man] to constitute sex discrimination. ... A failure to discriminate against all women does not mean that an employer has not discriminated against one woman on the basis of sex."). Nor can much be gleaned from the fact that later statutes, such as the Violence Against Women Act, expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of "gender identity," while Title VII does not, see Appellee Br. at 28, because "Congress may certainly choose to use both a belt and suspenders to achieve its objectives," Hively , 853 F.3d at 344 ; see also Yates v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1074, 1096, 191 L.Ed.2d 64 (2015) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (noting presence of two overlapping provisions in a statute "may have reflected belt-and-suspenders caution"). We have, in fact, already read Title VII to provide redundant statutory protections in a different context. In In re Rodriguez , 487 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2007), for instance, we recognized that claims alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnicity may fall within Title VII's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of national origin, see id. at 1006 n.1, even though at least one other federal statute treats "national origin" and "ethnicity" as separate traits, see 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii). Moreover, Congress's failure to modify Title VII to include expressly gender identity "lacks 'persuasive significance' because 'several equally tenable inferences' may be drawn from such inaction, 'including the inference that the existing legislation already incorporated the offered change.' " Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp. , 496 U.S. 633, 650, 110 S.Ct. 2668, 110 L.Ed.2d 579 (1990) (quoting United States v. Wise , 370 U.S. 405, 411, 82 S.Ct. 1354, 8 L.Ed.2d 590 (1962) ). In short, nothing precludes discrimination based on transgender status from being viewed both as discrimination based on "gender identity" for certain statutes and, for the purposes of Title VII, discrimination on the basis of sex. The Funeral Home places great emphasis on the fact that our published decision in Smith superseded an earlier decision that stated explicitly, as opposed to obliquely, that a plaintiff who "alleges discrimination based solely on his identification as a transsexual ... has alleged a claim of sex stereotyping pursuant to Title VII." Smith v. City of Salem , 369 F.3d 912, 922 (6th Cir.), opinion amended and superseded , 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004). But such an amendment does not mean, as the Funeral Home contends, that the now-binding Smith opinion "directly rejected" the notion that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of transgender status. See Appellee Br. at 31. The elimination of the language, which was not necessary to the decision, simply means that Smith did not expressly recognize Title VII protections for transgender persons based on identity. But Smith 's reasoning still leads us to the same conclusion. We are also unpersuaded that our decision in Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center , 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006), precludes the holding we issue today. We held in Vickers that a plaintiff cannot pursue a claim for impermissible sex stereotyping on the ground that his perceived sexual orientation fails to conform to gender norms unless he alleges that he was discriminated against for failing to "conform to traditional gender stereotypes in any observable way at work." Id. at 764. Vickers thus rejected the notion that "the act of identification with a particular group, in itself, is sufficiently gender non-conforming such that an employee who so identifies would, by this very identification, engage in conduct that would enable him to assert a successful sex stereotyping claim." Id. The Vickers court reasoned that recognizing such a claim would impermissibly "bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII." Id. (quoting Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble , 398 F.3d 211, 218 (2d Cir. 2005) ). The Funeral Home insists that, under Vickers , Stephens's sex-stereotyping claim survives only to the extent that it concerns her "appearance or mannerisms on the job," see id. at 763, but not as it pertains to her underlying status as a transgender person. The Funeral Home is wrong. First, Vickers does not control this case because Vickers concerned a different legal question. As the EEOC and amici Equality Ohio note, Vickers "addressed only whether Title VII forbids sexual orientation discrimination, not discrimination against a transgender individual." Appellant Br. at 30; see also Equality Ohio Br. at 16 n.7. While it is indisputable that "[a] panel of this Court cannot overrule the decision of another panel" when the "prior decision [constitutes] controlling authority," Darrah v. City of Oak Park , 255 F.3d 301, 309 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Salmi v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985) ), one case is not "controlling authority" over another if the two address substantially different legal issues, cf. Int'l Ins. Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co ., 86 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting two panel decisions that "on the surface may appear contradictory" were reconcilable because "the result [in both cases wa]s heavily fact driven"). After all, we do not overrule a case by distinguishing it. Second, we are not bound by Vickers to the extent that it contravenes Smith . See Darrah , 255 F.3d at 310 ("[W]hen a later decision of this court conflicts with one of our prior published decisions, we are still bound by the holding of the earlier case."). As noted above, Vickers indicated that a sex-stereotyping claim is viable under Title VII only if a plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against for failing to "conform to traditional gender stereotypes in any observable way at work ." 453 F.3d at 764 (emphasis added). The Vickers court's new "observable-at-work" requirement is at odds with the holding in Smith , which did not limit sex-stereotyping claims to traits that are observable in the workplace. The "observable-at-work" requirement also contravenes our reasoning in Barnes v. City of Cincinnati , 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) -a binding decision that predated Vickers by more than a year-in which we held that a reasonable jury could conclude that a transgender plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of his sex when, among other factors, his "ambiguous sexuality and his practice of dressing as a woman outside of work were well-known within the [workplace]." Id. at 738 (emphasis added). From Smith and Barnes , it is clear that a plaintiff may state a claim under Title VII for discrimination based on gender nonconformance that is expressed outside of work. The Vickers court's efforts to develop a narrower rule are therefore not binding in this circuit. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we hold that the EEOC could pursue a claim under Title VII on the ground that the Funeral Home discriminated against Stephens on the basis of her transgender status and transitioning identity. The EEOC should have had the opportunity, either through a motion for summary judgment or at trial, to establish that the Funeral Home violated Title VII's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex by firing Stephens because she was transgender and transitioning from male to female. 3. Defenses to Title VII Liability Having determined that the Funeral Home violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination, we must now consider whether any defenses preclude enforcement of Title VII in this case. As noted above, the district court held that the EEOC's enforcement efforts must give way to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), which prohibits the government from enforcing a religiously neutral law against an individual if that law substantially burdens the individual's religious exercise and is not the least restrictive way to further a compelling government interest. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. , 201 F.Supp.3d at 857-64. The EEOC seeks reversal of this decision; the Funeral Home urges affirmance. In addition, certain amici ask us to affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on different grounds-namely that Stephens falls within the "ministerial exception" to Title VII and is therefore not protected under the Act. See Public Advocate Br. at 20-24. We hold that the Funeral Home does not qualify for the ministerial exception to Title VII; the Funeral Home's religious exercise would not be substantially burdened by continuing to employ Stephens without discriminating against her on the basis of sex stereotypes; the EEOC has established that it has a compelling interest in ensuring the Funeral Home complies with Title VII; and enforcement of Title VII is necessarily the least restrictive way to achieve that compelling interest. We therefore REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment in the Funeral Home's favor and GRANT summary judgment to the EEOC on the unlawful-termination claim. a. Ministerial Exception We turn first to the "ministerial exception" to Title VII, which is rooted in the First Amendment's religious protections, and which "preclude[s] application of [employment discrimination laws such as Title VII] to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers." Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC , 565 U.S. 171, 188, 132 S.Ct. 694, 181 L.Ed.2d 650 (2012). "[I]n order for the ministerial exception to bar an employment discrimination claim, the employer must be a religious institution and the employee must have been a ministerial employee." Conlon v. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA , 777 F.3d 829, 833 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc. , 474 F.3d 223, 225 (6th Cir. 2007) ). "The ministerial exception is a highly circumscribed doctrine. It grew out of the special considerations raised by the employment claims of clergy, which 'concern[ ] internal church discipline, faith, and organization, all of which are governed by ecclesiastical rule, custom, and law.' " Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill , 617 F.3d 402, 409 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hutchison v. Thomas , 789 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir. 1986) ) (alteration in original). Public Advocate of the United States and its fellow amici argue that the ministerial exception applies in this case because (1) the exception applies both to religious and non-religious entities, and (2) Stephens is a ministerial employee. Public Advocate Br. at 20-24. Tellingly, however, the Funeral Home contends that the Funeral Home "is not a religious organization" and therefore, "the ministerial exception has no application" to this case. Appellee Br. at 35. Although the Funeral Home has not waived the ministerial-exception defense by failing to raise it, see Conlon , 777 F.3d at 836 (holding that private parties may not "waive the First Amendment's ministerial exception" because "[t]his constitutional protection is ... structural"), we agree with the Funeral Home that the exception is inapplicable here. As we made clear in Conlon , the ministerial exception applies only to "religious institution[s]." Id. at 833. While an institution need not be "a church, diocese, or synagogue, or an entity operated by a traditional religious organization," id. at 834 (quoting Hollins , 474 F.3d at 225 ), to qualify for the exception, the institution must be "marked by clear or obvious religious characteristics," id. at 834 (quoting Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Wash., Inc. , 363 F.3d 299, 310 (4th Cir. 2004) ). In accordance with these principles, we have previously determined that the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA ("IVCF"), "an evangelical campus mission," constituted a religious organization for the purposes of the ministerial exception. See id. at 831, 833. IVCF described itself on its website as "faith-based religious organization" whose "purpose 'is to establish and advance at colleges and universities witnessing communities of students and faculty who follow Jesus as Savior and Lord.' " Id. at 831 (citation omitted). In addition, IVCF's website notified potential employees that it has the right to "hir[e] staff based on their religious beliefs so that all staff share the same religious commitment." Id. (citation omitted). Finally, IVCF required all employees "annually [to] reaffirm their agreement with IVCF's Purpose Statement and Doctrinal Basis." Id. The Funeral Home, by comparison, has virtually no "religious characteristics." Unlike the campus mission in Conlon , the Funeral Home does not purport or seek to "establish and advance" Christian values. See id. As the EEOC notes, the Funeral Home "is not affiliated with any church; its articles of incorporation do not avow any religious purpose; its employees are not required to hold any particular religious views; and it employs and serves individuals of all religions." Appellant Reply Br. at 33-34 (citing R. 61 (Def.'s Counter Statement of Disputed Facts ¶¶ 25-27, 30, 37) (Page ID #1832-35) ). Though the Funeral Home's mission statement declares that "its highest priority is to honor God in all that we do as a company and as individuals," R. 55 (Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶ 21) (Page ID #1686), the Funeral Home's sole public displays of faith, according to Rost, amount to placing "Daily Bread" devotionals and "Jesus Cards" with scriptural references in public places in the funeral homes, which clients may pick up if they wish, see R. 51-3 (Rost 30(b)(6) Dep. at 39-40) (Page ID #652). The Funeral Home does not decorate its rooms with "religious figures" because it does not want to "offend[ ] people of different religions." R. 61 (Def.'s Counter Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 33) (Page ID # 1834). The Funeral Home is open every day, including on Christian holidays. Id. at 88-89 (Page ID #659-60). And while the employees are paid for federally recognized holidays, Easter is not a paid holiday. Id. at 89 (Page ID #660). Nor is Stephens a "ministerial employee" under Hosanna-Tabor . Following Hosanna-Tabor , we have identified four factors to assist courts in assessing whether an employee is a minister covered by the exception: (1) whether the employee's title "conveys a religious-as opposed to secular-meaning"; (2) whether the title reflects "a significant degree of religious training" that sets the employee "apart from laypersons"; (3) whether the employee serves "as an ambassador of the faith" and serves a "leadership role within [the] church, school, and community"; and (4) whether the employee performs "important religious functions ... for the religious organization." Conlon , 777 F.3d at 834-35. Stephens's title-"Funeral Director"-conveys a purely secular function. The record does not reflect that Stephens has any religious training. Though Stephens has a public-facing role within the funeral home, she was not an "ambassador of [any] faith," and she did not perform "important religious functions," see id. at 835 ; rather, Rost's description of funeral directors' work identifies mostly secular tasks-making initial contact with the deceased's families, handling the removal of the remains to the funeral home, introducing other staff to the families, coaching the families through the first viewing, greeting the guests, and coordinating the families' "final farewell," R. 53-3 (Rost Aff. ¶¶ 14-33) (Page ID #930-35). The only responsibilities assigned to Stephens that could be construed as religious in nature were, "on limited occasions," to "facilitate" a family's clergy selection, "facilitate the first meeting of clergy and family members," and "play a role in building the family's confidence around the role the clergy will play, clarifying what type of religious message is desired, and integrating the clergy into the experience." Id. ¶ 20 (Page ID #932-33). Such responsibilities are a far cry from the duties ascribed to the employee in Conlon , which "included assisting others to cultivate 'intimacy with God and growth in Christ-like character through personal and corporate spiritual disciplines.' " 777 F.3d at 832. In short, Stephens was not a ministerial employee and the Funeral Home is not a religious institution, and therefore the ministerial exception plays no role in this case. b. Religious Freedom Restoration Act Congress enacted RFRA in 1993 to resurrect and broaden the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence that existed before the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which overruled the approach to analyzing Free Exercise Clause claims set forth by Sherbert v. Verner , 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). See City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S. 507, 511-15, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). To that end, RFRA precludes the government from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," unless the government "demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. RFRA thus contemplates a two-step burden-shifting analysis: First, a claimant must demonstrate that complying with a generally applicable law would substantially burden his religious exercise. Upon such a showing, the government must then establish that applying the law to the burdened individual is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The questions now before us are whether (1) we ought to remand this case and preclude the Funeral Home from asserting a RFRA-based defense in the proceedings below because Stephens, a non-governmen