Cloutier did not notify costco during her interview or upon beginning her employment of her religious beliefs or practices 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. Omega sa v costco wholesale corp, 541 f3d 982 (9th cir 2008), was a case decided by the ninth circuit court of appeals that held that in copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not act as a defense to claims of infringing distribution and importation for unauthorized sale of authentic, imported watches that bore a design registered in . In cloutier v costco wholesale corp , 3 however, the first circuit court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for a retail employer who refused to permit an employee to wear piercings. Safety concerns are generally recognized as legitimate business needs: in eeoc v in the case of cloutier v costco, 390 f3d 126 (1st cir 2004), .
Management and leadership: costco wholesale costco wholesale is a company in the membership wholesale business costco wholesale, or just costco as the members refer to them, has 565 locations in 40 of the 50 states and australia, canada, japan, mexico, puerto rico, south korea, taiwan, and the . Kimberly m cloutier, plaintiff, appellant, v costco wholesale corp, defendant, appellee, 390 f3d 126 (1st cir 2004) case opinion from the us court of appeals . Cloutier v costco wholesale corp in this case kimberly cloutier worked as a cashier for costco in march 2001, costco revised its dress code to prohibit all facial jewelry, aside from earrings cloutier was advised to remove facial piercings cloutier refused because she is a member of the church .
• personal appearance policies implicate several cloutier v costco wholesale group – legitimate interest presenting a professional workforce to the. Justia us law case law new mexico case law new mexico supreme court decisions 1985 clothier v lopez lopez receive free daily summaries of new new mexico supreme court opinions. See, eg, cloutier v costco wholesale corp , 390 f3d 126 (1st cir 2004) (accommodating religiously motivated facial piercings would be an undue hardship because the piercings detracted from the neat, clean and professional image that costco sought to project). 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.
Wolkinsonfinalized_seven_updated 9/9/2010 4:47 pm 1185 comments a critical historical and legal reappraisal of bhatia vchevron usa, inc: judicial emasculation of the duty of. Almost 10 years ago, in the court case cloutier vcostco, an employee sued her employer for the failure to accommodate her religious beliefsthe employee indicated that she belonged to the church of body modification and asked to be allowed to wear a facial piercing as an exception to her employer’s policy. Case opinion for us 9th circuit omega v costco wholesale corporation read the court's full decision on findlaw. Discrimination case law update by: christopher a tinari, esquire religion cloutier v costco wholesale corp, 390 f3d 126, 94 fep 1476 (1st cir 2004) - an employer had no duty to accommodate an employee who insisted that her religion, the church of. If you have been discriminated against or wrongfully terminated based on your religious affiliations contact our employment lawyers located in connecticut.
View essay - ba307_wk5_wa from ba 370 at grantham university title page cloutier v costco the legal issue in this case is that of alleged religious discrimination. Selected cases on religious discrimination office of legal counsel cloutier v costco wholesale corp , 390 f3d 126 (1st cir 2004) the court found it. A summary and case brief of cloutier v costco wholesale corp, including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and . Cloutier v costco wholesale, 390 f3d 126, 1st cir (2004) - free download as pdf file (pdf) or read online for free filed: 2004-12-01 precedential status: precedential citations: 390 f3d 126 docket: 04-1475.
The costco employee who worshipped at the church of body modification facts kimberly cloutier was a member of the church of body modification in 1997, during her job interview for a position at costco, ms cloutier sported four tattoos and multiple earrings, but she had no facial piercings. In cloutier v costco warehouse (3/30/04), the us district court for massachusetts refused to consider costco’s claim that cbm was not a religion it assumed for . Compromise the integrity of that policy, cloutier v costco, 2004 us app lexis 24763 (december 1, 2004) employers will welcome the first circuit’s broad.
If cloutier did not work as a cashier, but in a position where she did not interact with customers, costco might have found it difficult to make the same argument against her facial jewelry second, cloutier’s hard-line, no-compromise approach worked against her in court, says kilker. Regulating appearance in the workplace: an employer’s guide to avoid employment discrimination lawsuits tuesday, march 18, 2014 see cloutier v costco wholesale corp,390 f3d 126, 128 . In cloutier v costco, cloutier was fired for violation of a no facial jewelry (other than earrings) provision of the dress code why was costco successful a costco . Rather, the court found that costco had responded appropriately by engaging in an interactive process and offering up several accommodations, such as wearing a clear piercing during work hours, but cloutier had rejected them all (cloutier v.
1 kimberly cloutier alleges that her employer, costco wholesale corp (costco), failed to offer her a reasonable accommodation after she alerted it to a conflict between the no facial jewelry provision of its dress code and her religious practice as a member of the church of body modification. Start studying ch 19 learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools search costco violated title vii in cloutier v costco by . Cloutier did not challenge the new policy or request an accommodation, but continued to wear her eyebrow piercing without incident three months later, however, costco informed cloutier that she would have to remove her facial piercings.