Case Summary: Kim
Cloutier worked for Costco. She had several tattoos and piercings covering her
body and face. After several years of employment, Costco updated their dress
code, prohibiting all facial jewelry except earrings. Cloutier’s supervisors
implemented the new policy and informed Cloutier that she would have to remove
her jewelry. She refused, claiming that she was a member of the Church of Body
Modification. Costco attempted to accommodate her by letting her wear a band
aid to cover it up, or putting studs in so the holes wouldn’t close. Cloutier rejected that offer, claiming
that the only acceptable accommodation would be to excuse her from the dress
code and let her wear her jewelry. Cloutier was fired and subsequently filed
suit for religious discrimination under Title VII.
The court granted summary judgment to Costco, concluding
that the defendant had attempted to reasonably accommodate Cloutier, and that
they would endure undue hardship if they had tried to accommodate Cloutier.
Group Opinion: We
affirm the ruling with the court, because unlike the last case, the employer
here (Costco) offered generous accommodations to Cloutier, which she refused.
While respecting the freedom of religion is paramount, this case demonstrated
that the employer had done everything in its power to resolve the situation
amicably. Furthermore, they were able to prove undue hardship, unlike the last
case with the Postal Service.
I agree with the court and group's decision. Costco did attempt to accommodate the employee, so then it was up to her whether she wanted to continue working at Costco and abide by their rules, or work somewhere else where tattoos and piercings were acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to Case 8.2 Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, where an employee wanted certain days off to observe his religion. The employer accommodated the employee for as long as it could, but when it causes hardship for the employer and interferes with business, then the employer does not need to go out of its way to accommodate the employee.
I think the group and the court got this one right. There was no purposeful discrimination done to the employee by the employer; Costco sought to find an understanding and accommodate Cloutier's "religion." It showed good faith to its employee until there was an undue hardship which it was able to prove --and the business function for existence is to generate profits. Costco handled the situation as best as it could until they couldn't anymore. They showed only loyalty to Cloutier, not discrimination.
ReplyDelete