• news
  • TUESDAY DECEMBER 14 2004 7:28 AM

Clerk Fired for Piercings Not Protected by Body Mod Church, Court Holds

Submitted by Aurelius

Edited by legionnaire

The arguably defunct Church of Body Modification has been dealt another blow, this time by a federal appellate court in Massachusetts, which rejected a religious discrimination claim against a store with no-piercing dress code.

Kimberly Cloutier, a clerk at the West Springfield Costco store and self-professed member of the Church, was fired for refusing to remove an eyebrow ring pursuant to the retail chain's published employee dress regulations, which ban visible facial piercings. She subsequently brought legal action against the company, claiming that the store's unwillingness to completely exempt her from the policy amounted to unlawful religious discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Avoiding the "thorny issue" of whether the Church is a bona fide religion and whether Cloutier's refusal to wear clear plastic retainers in her facial piercings or else cover them with band-aids was legitimately based on her religious or spiritual beliefs (questions over which the lower district court had expressed serious doubt), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held on December 1 that Costco's interest in the appearance of its front-line employees and Cloutier's unwillingness to compromise outweighed whatever protected religious interest she had under the Act:

[W]e are faced with the ... situation of an employee who will accept no accommodation short of an outright exemption from a neutral dress code. Granting such an exemption would be an undue hardship because it would adversely affect the employer's public image. Costco has made a determination that facial piercings, aside from earrings, detract from the "neat, clean and professional image" that it aims to cultivate. Such a business determination is within its discretion.


The court also held that a similar claim under Massachusetts law lacked merit.

The full opinion is available at Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 04-1475 (1st Cir. Dec. 1, 2004).

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
daniofthedead

daniofthedead

Philadelphia, PA
June 2004

DEC 14, 2004 11:26 AM

i wish every fucking person would stop claiming to be in the Church of Body Modification. its fucking lame. Everyone knows facial peircings arent an accepted part of society, fuckin deal with it.. Try to change opinions , i dont understand why putting a retainer in her eyebrow would have been so hard.


And with her one eyebrow piercing, its hard to believe she was a true praticing member of the church of body mod. UGH this makes me mad. mad

mariothemonkey

mariothemonkey

Avon, OH
June 2004

DEC 14, 2004 11:37 AM

Shawna said:
i've heard of the Church of Body Modification before...

but the issue here isn't her membership to the church, but rather that she was unwilling to compromise and wear a retainer.




However, most places will not accept a retainer, they strictly say nothing, I was told to go home because I had clear plugs in my ears, and yes I worked at costco.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

DEC 14, 2004 11:45 AM

yet another activist bench fucking with traditional american values. i hope they force through that constitutional amendment. wait, what are we talking about again?

SCISSORHANDS925

SCISSORHANDS925

North Scituate, RI
April 2004

DEC 14, 2004 12:56 PM

it doesn't matter what you call it,it is discimination to judge people by what they wear or how they look...piercing & tattoos included.......and the people doing it are the so called straight church going hipocrites......love thy neighbor...except if he or she is different...i've seen it all my life skull skull skull skull skull

fuck em all !!!!!!

SCISSORHANDS925

SCISSORHANDS925

North Scituate, RI
April 2004

DEC 14, 2004 12:58 PM

demetrius_z said:
So, would they be allowed to discriminate against, say Rastafarians, because of the way they look?



great point!!!!

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

DEC 14, 2004 01:40 PM

I mention the Rastas because this ruling avoid the religion thing, and concentrates on her lack of co-operation.

So, if a Rastafarian refused to cut his hair, whould the company be allowed to discriminate against him? If they did that, I guess (but I don't know, which is why I'm asking) that the religion thing would protect him, because it's a real religion?

I woder how far it could be taken. Could someone refuse to sell certain meats because they were not halal or kosher?

Idjit

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

DEC 14, 2004 01:45 PM

demetrius_z said:
I mention the Rastas because this ruling avoid the religion thing, and concentrates on her lack of co-operation.

So, if a Rastafarian refused to cut his hair, whould the company be allowed to discriminate against him? If they did that, I guess (but I don't know, which is why I'm asking) that the religion thing would protect him, because it's a real religion?

I woder how far it could be taken. Could someone refuse to sell certain meats because they were not halal or kosher?



Or perhaps not sell birth control if they're Christian pharmacists? How far are you going to take this, demetrius?

[Edited on Dec 14, 2004 by Idjiit]

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

DEC 14, 2004 01:49 PM

demetrius_z said:
I woder how far it could be taken. Could someone refuse to sell certain meats because they were not halal or kosher?


People do that all the time.

Haven't you ever seen a kosher market?

Al

Al

SUICIDEGIRL

Christmas Island

DEC 14, 2004 01:55 PM

SCISSORHANDS925 said:
it doesn't matter what you call it,it is discimination to judge people by what they wear or how they look...piercing & tattoos included.......and the people doing it are the so called straight church going hipocrites......love thy neighbor...except if he or she is different...i've seen it all my life skull skull skull skull skull

fuck em all !!!!!!



I would expect to be told to go home and change my clothes if I showed up to my job at costco wearing a thong and pasties... but should I not expect that because they're discriminating against me because of what I wear? That's a fucking weak argument.

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

DEC 14, 2004 02:33 PM

Point_Blank said:

demetrius_z said:
I woder how far it could be taken. Could someone refuse to sell certain meats because they were not halal or kosher?


People do that all the time.

Haven't you ever seen a kosher market?


Yes, of course I've seen shops that sell to certain markets. But if someone went to work for Safeway and then said "I can't sell any meat that isn't Kosher", would Safeway be able to sack them, or would Safeway be hampered? The ruling seems to avoid the religion thing, In the news article the religion thing is a bit of a red herring, because it's probably a bogus religion. But what happens if it's a real religion, and real reasons for avoiding an activity?

I have little idea about US laws so that's why I'm confused. It's much harder to sack someone in the UK (if they've been working full time for more than two years) than it seems to be over there.

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

DEC 14, 2004 02:37 PM

Idjiit said:
Or perhaps not sell birth control if they're Christian pharmacists? How far are you going to take this, demetrius?


Huh? I'm not going ot turn every thread into an abortion/anti-abortion/anti anti-abortionist thread.

I'm confused by how US law works. In the UK it's a lot simpler. Parliament makes a law, no-one really knows what it means until it gets tested in court which develops case law. At that point there are precedents so it's all easier.

In the example given they kind of avoided the whole religion thing. So, what would happen if a person with a real religion refused to do something (like sell non-kosher meat) from a shop like Safeway? Would they be protected by the law, or has the law not been tested yet?

It's not a deep or complicated question, and there's no hidden trick question. I live over here and don't know about your weird and freakish legal system. tongue smile smile

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

DEC 14, 2004 02:40 PM

could this lady be a cosco greeter?



[Edited on Dec 14, 2004 by dspsg]

Al

Al

SUICIDEGIRL

Christmas Island

DEC 14, 2004 02:42 PM

dspsg said:
could this lady be a cosco greeter?



[Edited on Dec 14, 2004 by dspsg]



Er, I think that might be a woman.

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

DEC 14, 2004 02:44 PM

Al said:

dspsg said:
could this lady be a cosco greeter?



[Edited on Dec 14, 2004 by dspsg]



Er, I think that might be a woman.


Yeah, I edited to fix that. Funny, usually I notice tits first wink

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

DEC 14, 2004 02:44 PM

Al said:

SCISSORHANDS925 said:
it doesn't matter what you call it,it is discimination to judge people by what they wear [...]


I would expect to be told to go home and change my clothes if I showed up to my job at costco wearing a thong and pasties... but should I not expect that because they're discriminating against me because of what I wear? That's a fucking weak argument.


How about the hijab?

Should an employer be able to demand that employees dealing with the public should not wear the veil?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

featured interviews