Church of Body Modification Case.

[Marty Lederman]

Actually, I see no reason at all to think that this religion is in any way bogus -- any more than mainstream religions with which we are much more familiar.  More to the point, it need not be an actual established "religion," as such, in order to be protected by title VII's religious accommodation provision.  That law has been construed by the EEOC to track the Seeger/Welch definitions of "religion," i.e., to protect "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views."  29 CFR 1605.1.   Which leads back to Marc's question:  Is a "grooming" rule based upon customer "preference" permissible in this area, even though an employer obviously could not facially discriminate against blacks, or women, or Jews, just because of customer preference?  I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do want to suggest that the cases are not exactly parallel.  In the classic "customer veto" case, the customers themselves would be discriminating on the basis of the protected characteristic, and therefore the law quite naturally does not permit the employer to tailor her business practices to account for such customer biases.  In this case, presumably the employer's not-implausible assumption is that customers will, rightly or wrongly, look askance on multiple body piercings, not because they view such piercings as religious in nature (to the contrary -- they'd probably be as surprised as Richard that the piercings are religiously motivated), but instead because of mainstream Western orthodoxy w/r/t such piercings (ok on ears, not-so-ok on other parts of the face).  I'm not sure how this would or should cut under title VII, but I suspect the CTA1 is correct that courts have generally sided with employers in such cases.     From: Menard, Richard H. To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:. .:. I've seen that in RFRA and RLUIPA cases: an almost neurotic reluctance to call a bogus "religion" a spade.  Makes for messy jurisprudence, but by and large the cases seem to come out right. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:35 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:. .:. Could be, but the court specifically refused to rule on that issue. Marc   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Menard, Richard H. Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:30 AM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:.   I haven't read the opinion yet, but it sounds like a tacit judgment on the sincerity of the belief.  Church of Body Modification, please. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:25 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:.     The First Circuit last week decided Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp, 04-1475 a Tile VII religious accommodation case. The plaintiff claimed to be a member of the Church of Body Modification which required members to wear facial jewelry. Such jewelry violated Costco's no facial jewelry policy. The Court found that an accommodation of the faith would have constituted undue hardship to Costco because customers would be offended by the appearance of facial jewelry." Courts....have also upheld dress code policies that....are designed to appeal to customer preference or to promote a professional public image." I find this astonishing. No court would uphold a whites only hiring policy on ground of customer preference. Airlines long ago lost the argument about customer preferences for sexy stewardesses. Why is religious garb different? The judicial evisceration of Title VII's religious accommodation provisions continues apace. Marc Stern Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations on 12/06/2004, 08:29:41 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations on 12/06/2004, 08:44:39 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.