Steven Williams Case .:.

[Marc Stern]

Could be, but the court specifically refused to rule on that issue.

Marc

 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] 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: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041206/c9cd4478/attachment.html