## Facts

- Kimberly M. Cloutier worked for Costco at its West Springfield, Massachusetts warehouse as a front-end employee/cashier.
- When hired in 1997, Cloutier had multiple earrings and tattoos but no facial piercings.
- Costco maintained a “professional appearance” dress code; in March 2001 it revised the policy to prohibit all facial jewelry other than earrings.
- After the revision, Cloutier obtained an eyebrow piercing and continued to wear an eyebrow ring at work.
- When instructed to remove the ring, Cloutier refused and for the first time asserted a religious obligation as a member of the Church of Body Modification.
- Costco offered alternatives: covering the piercing with a bandage or using a clear retainer; Cloutier rejected both, asserting her religion required the piercing to remain visible.
- Costco terminated Cloutier for refusing to comply with the dress code.
- Cloutier sued under Title VII and Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B, alleging failure to accommodate her religious practice; the district court granted summary judgment to Costco.

## Issues

1. Whether Costco unlawfully failed to accommodate Cloutier’s asserted religious practice under Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B by enforcing a no-facial-jewelry dress code.
2. Whether exempting Cloutier from the no-facial-jewelry policy would impose an undue hardship on Costco.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Costco.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that Cloutier’s asserted belief was sincerely held and religious, and proceeded to accommodation/undue hardship.
- The court held Costco had no duty to provide the requested accommodation because allowing visible facial jewelry as an exemption to the policy would impose undue hardship.
- The court affirmed on undue-hardship grounds rather than on whether the bandage/retainer options were reasonable accommodations.
- The court rejected the argument that sporadic or isolated dress-code violations by other employees required Costco to grant a religious exemption.
- The court held Massachusetts law did not require a more demanding accommodation result than Title VII on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII religious-accommodation claim requires the employee to show a bona fide religious belief conflicting with a job requirement, notice to the employer, and discipline for noncompliance; the employer then must show either reasonable accommodation or undue hardship.
- Title VII requires a reasonable accommodation, not the employee’s preferred accommodation.
- Under the then-governing standard, an employer shows undue hardship by demonstrating more than a de minimis burden.
- An employer may enforce a neutral dress code tied to legitimate business interests, including maintaining a professional public image, when an exemption would undermine the policy and its consistent administration.
- Occasional non-enforcement or isolated violations of a neutral policy do not, without more, create a duty to grant religious exemptions.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that Costco was not required to exempt an employee from its no-facial-jewelry dress code to permit a visibly worn eyebrow ring because the requested exemption would impose undue hardship by impairing Costco’s ability to maintain and consistently enforce its professional-appearance policy; summary judgment for Costco was affirmed under both federal and Massachusetts law.


Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004)