October 21, 2002
Suit Charges Religious Discrimination Over Eyebrow Piercing
by Marla A. Goldberg
Religion News Service
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- To Costco, an employee's eyebrow ring was a violation of the corporation's dress code. To the worker, it was a symbol of her religious belief.
Last year Costco Wholesale Corp. fired Kimberly M. Cloutier of West Springfield for refusing to remove the ring. She has now filed a $2 million suit against the corporation.
Cloutier, 27, belongs to the Church of Body Modification and maintains that her piercings, which include several earrings in each ear and a recently acquired lip ring, are worn as a sign of faith and help to unite her mind, body and soul.
"It's not just an aesthetic thing," Cloutier said. "It's your body; you're taking control of it."
Cloutier filed suit against Costco in Springfield's U.S. District Court after a finding in May by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Costco probably violated religious discrimination laws when its West Springfield store fired Cloutier in July 2001. The
commission's area director in Boston, Robert L. Sanders, determined that Cloutier's wearing of an eyebrow ring qualified as a religious practice under federal law, and that Costco refused to accommodate Cloutier.
Costco, meanwhile, argues it did nothing wrong in requiring Cloutier to take out her eyebrow ring or cover it at work. "Costco was acting in the best interest of its members and customers," said Lynn A. Kappelman of Seyfarth & Shaw, the Boston law firm representing Costco.
Kappelman said Costco bars facial piercings "in the same way that we require our employees to be sanitary and clean and neat in our dress."
Although reluctant to call Costco's objection to facial piercings a hygiene matter, Kappelman said "hygiene could be an issue if an employee had numerous piercings or open sores."
Cloutier said she wore her eyebrow ring on the job at Costco for about two years before she was fired for refusing to comply with a dress code issued in spring 2001. The dress code barred facial and tongue jewelry and visible tattoos, along with sweatpants, jeans with holes and open-toed shoes.
Cloutier said she met with Costco managers and told them her eyebrow ring was part of her religion, but was sent home and told she couldn't work with the piercing.
Corporations have "significant discretion" to set dress codes for workers who deal directly with the public, according to American Civil Liberties Union lawyer William C. Newman. However, Newman said a company's powers when it comes to dress code are not unlimited. "Discretion ends where religious or gender discrimination begins," he said.
The Portland, Ore.-based Church of Body Modification is described on its Web site -- www.churchofbodmod.com -- as "an interfaith church whose members practice an assortment of ancient body modification rites, which we believe are essential to our spiritual salvation." The church believes that through body modification, including piercings and tattoos, members strengthen bonds among mind, body and spirit. Cloutier said the church has about 450 members.
Kappelman refused comment on whether Costco believes the church is legitimate, saying only that Costco doesn't question or get involved in employee beliefs or customs.
"Costco feels very confident that they have not violated the law or discriminated against her (Cloutier) on the basis of religious practices," Kappelman said.
In Massachusetts, the protection granted by anti-discrimination laws has widened in recent years, to explicitly include people of nontraditional beliefs. A 1996 amendment to state labor law defines
"creed or religion" as any sincerely held religious beliefs and said beliefs don't need to be approved by an established church.
Newman said companies are generally more accepting of practices linked to major religions such as workers wearing a crucifix or Star of David on the job.
Under the law, companies can't ask people to stop wearing religiously required attire, such as head scarves worn by observant Muslim women, simply because a client or employer believes it projects the wrong image. Since last year's terrorist attacks, the number of religious and ethnic discrimination complaints has risen, according to the EEOC, including many from people who are Muslim or Arab or are perceived to be.
A company can lawfully refuse to accommodate a worker's religious practices if "undue hardship" or extraordinary costs would result, but in Cloutier's case, the EEOC found no evidence her eyebrow ring would create hardship.
