« EEOC v. Sidley Austin | Main | Union Organizing Conference at NY Law School »
January 19, 2005
Body piercing, religion and the workplace
An interesting recent case from the 1st Circuit. In Cloutier v. Costco, 390 F3d. 126 (2004), Kimberly Cloutier alleged that:
her employer, Costco Wholesale Corp. (Costco), failed to offer her a reasonable accommodation after she alerted 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. 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). The district court granted summary judgment for Costco, concluding that Costco reasonably accommodated Cloutier by offering to reinstate her if she either covered her facial piercing with a band-aid or replaced it with a clear retainer. We affirm the grant of summary judgment, but on a different basis. See Estades-Negroni v. Assocs. Corp. of North Am., 377 F.3d 58, 62 (1st Cir. 2004) ("We may affirm . . . on any grounds supported by the record."). We hold that Costco had no duty to accommodate Cloutier because it could not do so without undue hardship.
For some commentary on the case see, Costco Scores Big Win For Dress Codes, by Michael Mitchell.
January 19, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d83468379c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Body piercing, religion and the workplace:
Comments
A quirky case, but ultimately this highly questionable "religion" now has created some bad law for adherents to more genuine religions.
Though it may not be an explicit basis for the holding, the court's skepticism of the bona fide "religious" nature of the "Church of Body Modification" likely colored its holding on "accommodation duty." Now there's a precedent on the books, applicable to all religions, saying that appearance rules can trump religious commandments. Could the implications could be significant for Orthodox Jews wearing yarmulkes, etc.?
Posted by: Scott Moss | Jan 20, 2005 8:50:08 PM
I am trying to find out how to become a professional body piercer and i am having a little trouble finding any web sites that have information about where i could take some classes. if you could please help me in my search, that would be wonderful. thank you for your time and any information you may be able to provide.
Christina
Posted by: christina wilkins | Nov 11, 2005 2:43:05 AM
In religion or not,walmart dont want any facial piercings but for the touge u can have a clear retainer..Doesnt make any sense?
Posted by: Jenny | Aug 1, 2006 11:50:50 PM
What about freedom of expression? I do not feel anyone has the right to discriminate someone because they have facial piercings. I am Wiccan/Pagan and believe that piercing is my way of giving the ultimate sacrifice to my creator. Wearing my jewelery is showing that I made that sacrifice. Tribal people today and since the beginning of time have pierced for religious reasons. Stop all discrimination, allow employees to wear their piercings and be proud. By prohibiting them it shows just how much society promotes discrimination of all kinds. Christians are allowed to wear religious signs but I have been told by an employer to hide mine. If it is ok for one religion then it is ok for all.
Posted by: Cyndi B | Oct 17, 2007 2:48:50 AM
I actually came across this, because I am trying to find a way to protect myself in the workplace as an individual engaged in body modification. It is a deeply spiritual practice to me, where I am attempting to unlock an idealized version of myself (and who isn't in our society?), but it seems I have to sacrifice that to find a decent job.
So... I can give up that pursuit and be unhappy -or- be broke and unhappy. Not a fair choice in my book.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 25, 2008 3:49:29 PM
What happened to our First Amendment right of self expression? Everyone is suppose to be this cookie cutter image. My daughter is in high school and I fight constantly for her right to wear her facial piercings. The excuse is it is a distraction or a safety hazzard. Shouldn't these teachers be able to engage these children enough so a nose or eyebrow being pierced isn't a distraction? If they can't maybe they shouldn't be teaching. Most of the kids that I encounter that are free to express themsleves are happier, easy going, intelligent kids.
Posted by: Holly | Oct 2, 2008 5:21:12 PM
holly its very easy to judge and point the finger. Teachers are not taught to deal with these situations. Teachers enforce the rules of the superentendents. If your daughter is tough enough to pierce her body she should be ready to fight her own battles. I have facial piercing, and i knew the world was not going to accept with open arms. One thing is being a dumbass and not following the rules and other is being "discriminated". One of my classmates wears a swastica and calls it self expression; the question is can we really define self expression and what is the limit?
Posted by: carlos | Dec 7, 2008 9:31:39 PM
Is there a known "case" where someone has
won a law suit against an employeer who will not
not allow facial piercing?
Posted by: Dianne | Apr 16, 2009 1:22:38 PM
