Believe it or not: http://www.churchofbodmod.com/
Rob Vischer
-----Original Message-----
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.
|