Steven Williams Case .:. .:.

[mikedean at execpc.com]

Just an observation from a practitioner.  I looked at Cloutier just a few weeks ago in declining to represent a retail clerk who clearly DID have sincerely held beliefs re wearing jewelry symbolizing very conventional Christian beliefs.  This case and others like it give employers a lot of ammunition, rendering the litigation so costly and the result so uncertain that I am unwilling to invest my time and resources in hope that "by and large the cases seem to come out right."  I assume many other legitimate cases are declined for the same reasons.

M. Dean
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Menard, Richard H. 
  To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' 
  Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:41 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: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]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: 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.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm 
  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 Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
  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.


  _____________________________________________________
  This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041206/8a4a55f8/attachment.htm