Cloutier v costco

Heard September 14, Decided December 1,

Cloutier v costco

Before summarizing the court's reasoning, however, it is important to emphasize one point. This decision is not intended in any way to offer an Cloutier v costco on the substance or validity of the belief system of the Church of Body Modification.

While its tenets may be viewed by some as unconventional, or even bizarre, the respect afforded by our laws to individual conscience, particularly in regard to religious beliefs, puts any deconstruction of the Church's doctrine beyond the purview of the court.

Indeed, as the Supreme Court has noted, "[Individuals] may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs.

As will be seen, even if the belief system of the Church of Body Modification is accepted on its own terms, the undisputed facts of record demonstrate that the accommodation offered by Costco, and ultimately rejected by the plaintiff, was reasonable Page 3 as a matter of law.

Given this, the controlling authorities require entry of judgment in favor of the defendant. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that the evidence does not support the nonmoving party's case.

In performing this analysis, the court must examine the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor.

If there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party Cloutier v costco a trier of fact to return a verdict for that party, the court must deny the motion for summary judgment.

In July ofCostco. At the time, Cloutier had eleven ear piercings, but no facial piercings. Cloutier also had four tattoos on her upper arms, though these were concealed under the clothing she wore during her interview and for the duration of her employment with Costco.

Cloutier did not notify Costco. Shortly before her first day of work, Cloutier received her first copy of the Costco Wholesale Handbook, also referred to as the employment agreement, containing the employee dress code.

In Septembertwo months after hiring her, Costco. Induring Cloutier's time in the deli department, Costco. Cloutier's supervisor at the deli, Laura Ostrander, told Cloutier that she would have to comply with the company's policy and remove her earrings and other jewelry.

Cloutier replied that she would not take them out. She neither mentioned her membership in any church or any personal religious beliefs, nor requested an Page 5 accommodation for her jewelry wearing.

Cloutier v costco

However, because she did not want to remove her earrings, Cloutier sought a transfer out of the deli department. In June ofCloutier returned to the position of front end assistant.

Around this time, Cloutier got her eyebrow pierced. She has not removed her eyebrow ring since. Cloutier continued working as a front end assistant until Julywhen she was promoted to cashier. Nonetheless, Cloutier testified in her deposition that she engaged in these practices because they had meaning to her.

The CBM is a congregation whose goal is to "achieve acceptance in this given society so that [members of the Church] may celebrate [their] bodies with body modification.

According to the mission statement on the CBM website, members of the CBM believe that the practice of body modification and body manipulation strengthens the bond between mind, body, and soul, thus ensuring that adherents live Page 6 as spiritually complete and healthy individuals.

At one time, the CBM listed as one of its tenets that members should "seek to be confident models in learning, teaching and displaying body modification.

Although it does not appear that CBM doctrine demands the practice, Cloutier has personally interpreted this tenet as requiring her to display her body modifications at all times.

After reviewing the CBM's website, Cloutier decided to join. Costco disputes the timing of Cloutier's membership in the CBM. However, during her deposition, Cloutier testified that she actually joined the CBM three months earlier, in March She stated that she attempted to submit her membership application on-line, but due to a computer glitch the application was not processed.

Cloutier further testified Page 7 that she had a number of phone conversations with someone from the CBM about the status of her application. Eventually, after Cloutier resubmitted her application in Juneher membership was formally processed, and she received her membership card that July.

In March ofCostco. She did not, however, request a religious accommodation for the wearing of her facial jewelry at that time but simply continued to wear her facial jewelry despite the dress code policy.

On June 25,Cloutier and her co-worker, Jennifer Theriaque reported to work wearing their eyebrow rings. Two supervisors, Todd Cunningham and Michele Callaghan, called Cloutier and Theriaque into an office and advised them that their facial piercings would have to be removed in order for the two women to continue to work for Costco.

Cloutier did not say Page 8 anything to her supervisors about her religion at that time.

Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale, First Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE What do these things have in common?
Crossed: When Religion and Dress Code Policies Intersect Cloutier, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.
Authorities (24) This decision is not intended in any way to offer an opinion on the substance or validity of the belief system of the Church of Body Modification.
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. - Wikipedia Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States. Thank you for your support!

Theriaque, on the other hand, informed Cunningham and Callaghan of her own membership in the CBM, as well as Cloutier's.In Cloutier v. Costco, Kimberly Cloutier, a cashier at Costco and a member of the “Church of Body Modification”, brought suit after she was terminated for refusing to remove her facial piercings based on religious grounds and declining to accept any of the Company’s offered accommodations.

Costco asserts that allowing Cloutier to be exempted from its neutral dress code policy would be an undue hardship on its business in that an exemption would undermine Costco's interest in presenting a professional appearance to its customers.

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: Milissa Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc. At the time, Cloutier had multiple ear piercings and tattoos. Over the next few years, Cloutier engaged in more body modifications, including facial piercings. In March , Costco revised its dress code to prohibit all facial jewelry with the sole exception of earrings.

Cloutier nevertheless continued to wear her eyebrow piercing. On June 25, , Costco informed Cloutier that she needed to remove her . Cloutier v.

Cloutier v costco

Costco Wholesale Corp. In this case Kimberly Cloutier worked as a cashier for Costco. In March , Costco revised its dress code to prohibit all facial jewelry, aside from earrings. Cloutier was advised to remove facial piercings.

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _____ KIMBERLY CLOUTIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant Although Cloutier knew Costco had resolved the religious conflict with Theriaque by allowing her to wear a retainer, Cloutier nevertheless chose not to report to work.

Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case Brief - Quimbee