Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
390 F.3d 126, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24763, 86 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,884 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not required under Title VII to grant a religious accommodation that would impose an undue hardship, which includes non-economic costs such as the impairment of the company's public image.
Facts:
- Kimberly Cloutier began working for Costco Wholesale Corp. in 1997 and received the employee dress code.
- In March 2001, Costco revised its dress code to prohibit all facial jewelry other than earrings.
- On June 25, 2001, supervisors began enforcing the revised policy and instructed Cloutier to remove her eyebrow piercing.
- The following day, Cloutier informed her supervisors that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and her piercing was a required religious practice that must be visible at all times.
- Initially, Cloutier suggested covering the piercing with a band-aid, but her manager rejected this and sent her home.
- Another employee with facial piercings was permitted by Costco to wear clear plastic retainers instead of jewelry.
- Cloutier was terminated for unexcused absences stemming from her refusal to comply with the dress code.
- During post-termination mediation, Cloutier rejected Costco's offers to allow her to return to work wearing a band-aid or a clear retainer, insisting that the only acceptable accommodation was a full exemption from the policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Cloutier filed a religious discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC issued a determination finding that Costco's actions violated Title VII.
- Cloutier filed suit against Costco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for religious discrimination under federal and state law.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Costco, concluding that its offers to let Cloutier wear a band-aid or a clear retainer constituted a reasonable accommodation.
- Cloutier, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with Costco as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's refusal to grant a complete exemption from its neutral, business-related dress code as a religious accommodation violate Title VII if the only accommodation the employee will accept would cause the employer an undue hardship?
Opinions:
Majority - Lipez, Circuit Judge
No. An employer's refusal to grant an employee's requested religious accommodation does not violate Title VII where that accommodation is the only one the employee will accept and it would impose an undue hardship on the employer. The court assumed for the sake of argument that Cloutier established a prima facie case of religious discrimination. However, it bypassed the district court's reasoning on 'reasonable accommodation' and focused instead on 'undue hardship.' Under Title VII, an undue hardship is any accommodation that imposes more than a de minimis cost on the employer, which can include non-economic costs. Costco has a legitimate business interest in presenting a 'neat, clean and professional image' to its customers through its dress code. Granting Cloutier a complete exemption—the only accommodation she would accept—would damage Costco's public image and cause it to lose control over its business presentation. This loss of control constitutes an undue hardship, relieving Costco of its duty to provide the accommodation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces an employer's prerogative to establish and enforce neutral appearance standards that promote a specific public image. It establishes that potential harm to a company's brand or professional reputation is a legitimate, non-economic factor that can constitute an 'undue hardship' under Title VII. The ruling clarifies that while employers must seek to accommodate religious beliefs, they are not required to grant the employee's preferred accommodation, particularly when it involves a complete exemption that undermines a core business interest and the employee refuses any other compromise.
