An LGBTQ advocacy group has condemned Alabama for participating in a multi-state effort to get the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that prohibited a funeral home from firing a transgender employee.

A brief was filed Aug. 24 by a coalition of attorney generals and governors from 16 states, including Alabama, in the case of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Michigan funeral home in March and stated that a transgendered employee, Aimee Stephens, was protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The states called the ruling "egregious error" and stated that sex "under the plain terms of Title VII does not mean anything other than biological status."

Jamie Foster, field director for Equality Alabama, said this isn't the only brief filed against the court ruling. The Alabama-based, Christian nonprofit Foundation for Moral Law, also filed one. Kayla Moore, wife of former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Roy Moore, is the current president of the foundation.

Roy Moore, a Republican, lost his candidacy for the U.S. senate seat to Democrat Doug Jones in December after multiple women accused Moore of sexual misconduct while they were in their teens and he was in his 30s.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, another conservative Christian nonprofit whose attorneys are representing the funeral home, also filed a brief against the ruling. Groups have until Sept. 24 to file briefs to SCOTUS on that case. Then the court will decide whether to hear the case.

Foster said the briefs present similar arguments.

"If one just looks at groups who have also filed similar briefs contesting the Sixth Circuit's decision, it should come as no surprise that this is a deliberate attack on trans and gender nonconforming people and their livelihoods," Foster said. "No one should have to fear that they will lose their job simply because they are living authentically."

Nebraska's attorney general office submitted the amicus brief. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is listed as one of the petitioners in the brief. Others include the attorney generals from Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. The governors of Kentucky, Mississippi and Maine also are also among the petitioners.

In a statement to Al.com, the Alabama Attorney General's office said the Sixth Circuit Court considered a person's gender identity, not just their biological sex, while ruling on the case.

"Alabama and the other states maintain that Title VII, as a matter of law, should be interpreted as it is written," the statement said. "This is consistent with the position of the United States Justice Department."

Dictionary definition of the word "sex", which used terms such as "reproductive organs", were included in the states' 20-page brief. The states also noted other federal statutes that included both "sex" and "gender identity," suggesting that the terms cannot be used interchangeably.

"In rewriting Title VII to its own liking, rather than interpreting the statute based on its text, history, and purpose," the states argued in its brief, "the Sixth Circuit not only ignored the will of Congress, but bestowed upon itself (an unelected legislature of three) the power to rewrite congressional enactments in violation of the separation of powers."

Foster said the states in the brief are ignoring other court cases where Title VII was used to protect transgender people due to discrimination based on gender stereotypes.

Foster mentioned the 1989 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins decision in which the supreme court sided with a female employee who argued that her former employer, an accounting firm, denied her partnership because she didn't fit into the firm's ideas of how a woman should dress and act. The ruling made gender stereotyping a form of sex discrimination.

Foster also noted Glenn v. Brumby, which relied on the Waterhouse ruling. In 2012, the 11th Circuit Court ruled that because everyone is protected against discrimination based on sex and gender stereotypes, these same Title VII protections cannot be denied to transgender individuals. Foster said the 2016 Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales, LLC case also used the gender bias argument as discrimination towards transgender people.

If the Supreme Court were to examine the Sixth Circuit Court's decision and supported it, it would mean a lot to the transgender community, Foster said.

"It could reinforce prior court decisions that uphold the current precedent for extending Title VII protections to trans and gender non-conforming folks," Foster said.

Amicus Brief by Jonece on Scribd