The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P began working at D's store in July 1997. Before her first day of work, P received a copy of the D employment agreement, which included the employee dress code. When she was hired, P had multiple earrings and four tattoos, but no facial piercings. P moved from her position as a front-end assistant to the deli department in September 1997. In 1998, D revised its dress code to prohibit food handlers, including deli employees, from wearing any jewelry. P's supervisor instructed her to remove her earrings pursuant to the revised code, but P refused. Instead, she requested to transfer to a front-end position where she would be permitted to continue wearing her jewelry. P made no mention of a religious or spiritual belief about earrings. D approved P's transfer back to a front-end position in June 1998 and promoted her to cashier soon thereafter. P engaged in various forms of body modification including facial piercing and cutting. These practices were not motivated by a religious belief. In March 2001, D revised its dress code to prohibit all facial jewelry, aside from earrings. P continued to wear her eyebrow piercing for several months. D began enforcing its no-facial jewelry policy in June 2001. D informed P and another employee, Jennifer Theriaque, that they would have to remove their facial piercings. P and Theriaque did not comply, returning to work the following day still wearing their piercings. The next day P indicated for the first time that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification (CBM), and that her eyebrow piercing was part of her religion. CBM was established in 1999 and counts approximately 1000 members who participate in such practices as piercing, tattooing, branding, cutting, and body manipulation. Among the goals espoused in the CBM's mission statement are for its members to 'grow as individuals through body modification and its teachings,' to 'promote growth in mind, body, and spirit,' and to be 'confident role models in learning, teaching, and displaying body modification.' The church's website, apparently its primary mode for reaching its adherents, did not state that members' body modifications had to be visible at all times or that temporarily removing body modifications would violate a religious tenet. P interprets the call to be a confident role model as requiring that her piercings be visible at all times and precluding her from removing or covering her facial jewelry. She does not extend this reasoning to the tattoos on her upper arms, which were covered at work by her shirt. D reviewed the CBM website and instructed P and Theriaque to remove their facial jewelry. They refused. D filed a religious discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is empowered to enforce Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. On her next shift on June 29, 2001, she was still wearing her facial jewelry. P suggested that she be allowed to cover her eyebrow piercing with a flesh-colored band-aid. D rejected the suggestion and told Cloutier that she had to remove the piercing or go home. P left. Theriaque wore clear plastic retainers to work for several weeks unnoticed before D gave her permission to do so. P learned during the week of July 2, 2001, that Theriaque had returned to work with retainers, she chose to wait for her EEOC complaint to be resolved rather than following suit. On July 14, P received notice in the mail that she had been terminated for her unexcused absences resulting from noncompliance with the dress code. On August 10, 2001, D offered to let P return to work wearing either plastic retainers or a band-aid over her jewelry. P took the position that replacing her eyebrow piercing with a plastic retainer or covering it with a band-aid would thus contradict her religious convictions. P asserts that the only reasonable accommodation would be to excuse her from D's dress code, allowing her to wear her facial jewelry to work. D responds that this accommodation would interfere with its ability to maintain a professional appearance and would thereby create an undue hardship for its business. The EEOC held that D's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It held that there was no evidence that allowing her to wear the jewelry would have constituted an undue hardship. P filed a suit alleging a Title VII violation. The district court granted D's motion to dismiss P's state civil rights claim but allowed the federal and state discrimination claims to proceed. D then moved for summary judgment on the discrimination claims. The court evaluated P's prima facie case, which required her to show that (1) a bona fide religious practice conflicted with an employment requirement, (2) she brought the practice to Costco's attention, and (3) the religious practice was the basis for the termination. It expressed serious doubts as to whether P's claim was based on a 'bona fide religious practice' and stated that CBM 'in no way requires a display of facial piercings at all times and this was merely a personal interpretation by P. The court held that D should prevail because it fulfilled its obligations under the second part of the Title VII framework in that D had offered P a reasonable accommodation of her religious practice. The temporary covering of P's facial piercings during working hours impinges on P's religious scruples no more than the wearing of a blouse, which covers P's tattoos. It held that 'the search for a reasonable accommodation goes both ways. Although the employer is required under Title VII to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, the employee has a duty to cooperate with the employer's good faith efforts to accommodate.' Title VII does not require D to grant P's preferred accommodation, but merely a reasonable one. P offered no compromise or accommodation whatsoever. The court made the same ruling on the state causes of action. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.