Statute and Case Law Relationship

Statute and Case Law Relationship

In Cloutier v. Costco, 390 F3d. 126 (2004), Kimberly Cloutier alleged that her employer, Costco Wholesale Corp, failed to offer her a reasonable accommodation after she informed it to a conflict between the "no facial jewelry" provision of its dress code and her religious practice as a member of the Church of Body Modification (CBM) (Body piercing, religion and the workplace, 2005). She argues that this failure amounts to religious discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and the corresponding Massachusetts statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(1A). Title VII requires employers to accommodate the "sincerely held" religious beliefs of employees and applicants, unless doing so imposes an "undue hardship," usually defined as anything more than a de minimus or token cost (Mitchell, 2005).

While working in a front-end position at Costco, Cloutier began body piercing to follow the tenets of CBM, a religious organization encouraging its members to "grow as individuals through body modification and its teachings," and to be "confident role models in learning, teaching, and displaying body modification." (Mitchell, 2005) Costco attempted to enforce a new "no piercings" dress code and Cloutier proposed covering her pierced eyebrow with a flesh colored bandage which Costco rejected. When she was eventually terminated for excess absences, she filed a charge of religiously-based discrimination with the EEOC. Costco then offered to accept the bandage accommodation, which Cloutier now rejected as contrary to her beliefs. The EEOC found discrimination and Cloutier sued in the U.S. District Court.

The district court granted summary judgment for Costco, concluding that it reasonably accommodated Cloutier by offering to reinstate her if she covered her facial piercing with a band-aid (Body piercing, religion and the workplace, 2005). The court held that Costco had no duty to accommodate Cloutier because it could not do so without undue hardship. Ruling that an undue hardship takes into account both economic costs, such as lost business or having to hire additional employees, but also non-economic costs, such as compromising the integrity of a seniority system, the Court concluded that the burden to Costco of violating an important personal appearance policy trumped the religious need of an employee to express her belief in piercing. Thus this case, has strong implications for the employer's right to set reasonable grooming standards even in the face of religious beliefs.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Case No. CV-04-4731 SI, was filed on November 10, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco (EEOC agrees to landmark resolution of discrimination case against Abercrombie & Fitch, 2004). The lawsuit alleged that Abercrombie & Fitch, which operates a nationwide chain of retail stores, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practices that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment. The lawsuit was resolved by entry of a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court, providing that Abercrombie & Fitch pay $50 million to resolve the EEOC lawsuit along with two private class actions filed against the company. The Consent Decree enjoins Abercrombie & Fitch from:

a. discriminating against applicants based upon race, color, national origin which includes African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Latinos;