## Facts

- Edward Rangel worked as a server for Red Robin and practiced Kemeticism.
- As part of a religious rite, Rangel received two narrow wrist tattoos in Coptic script with religious meaning tied to his faith and servitude to the sun god Ra.
- Rangel believed intentionally covering the tattoos would violate his religion, though they could be incidentally covered by clothing in cold weather and during a particular religious observance period.
- Red Robin maintained an appearance policy requiring that tattoos not be visible while working; Rangel signed the policy when hired.
- Rangel worked for months with the wrist tattoos visible without documented customer, coworker, or supervisor complaints.
- After management later directed Rangel to cover the tattoos, he explained their religious significance and stated he could not intentionally conceal them; one manager initially permitted him to continue working with them visible.
- At another location, managers again instructed Rangel to cover the tattoos and suggested wristbands or bracelets; Rangel refused, was escorted out, and did not complete a shift rather than cover them.
- Red Robin terminated Rangel’s employment; the EEOC alleged the company justified its actions as necessary to maintain a “wholesome” and “all-American” image.
- The EEOC sued under Title VII on Rangel’s behalf, alleging failure to accommodate religion; Red Robin moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Rangel’s refusal to intentionally cover his wrist tattoos qualified as a sincerely held religious practice protected by Title VII, despite occasional incidental concealment.
2. Whether Red Robin established, as a matter of law, that exempting Rangel from the no-visible-tattoos policy would impose an undue hardship under Title VII.

## Decision

- The court denied Red Robin’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact on whether Rangel’s belief and practice were religious and sincerely held.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact on whether allowing the tattoos to remain visible would impose an undue hardship.
- The court rejected undue-hardship arguments grounded only in speculative, image-based assertions unsupported by concrete evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the employer shows undue hardship.
- Religious sincerity is ordinarily a fact question; apparent inconsistency in practice does not, by itself, defeat sincerity at the summary-judgment stage where evidence supports a religious explanation.
- Undue hardship requires an evidence-based showing of more than minimal burden; generalized concerns about brand image or uniformity, without proof of actual business impact, are insufficient.
- Summary judgment is improper where material factual disputes exist regarding sincerity, the feasibility of accommodation, and the reality (as opposed to speculation) of claimed burdens.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the Title VII religious-accommodation claim to proceed to trial because a jury could find that Rangel’s objection to intentionally covering his religious wrist tattoos was sincere and that Red Robin failed to show an evidence-based undue hardship beyond speculative concerns about maintaining a preferred public image.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., No. C04-1291JLR, 2005 WL 2090677 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2005)