Monday, September 17, 2012

Miles on Burger King and Religious Accommodations published an article, Burger King Forbids Cashier's Skirt, Faces EEOC Lawsuit. I provided some commentary for the article, including references to cases on point. If the case sounds familiar, that's because it was the Lawffice Space Case of the Week a few weeks ago.

The article mentions a few cases. Here are the citations supporting the assertions in the article:

  • An employer may establish an “undue hardship” under Religious Accommodation analysis by showing that the accommodation would impose more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 259-60 (3d Cir. 2009); citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977).
  • “A religious accommodation that creates a genuine safety or security risk can undoubtedly constitute an undue hardship for an employer-prison.” E.E.O.C. v. GEO Group, Inc., 616 F.3d 265, 273 (3d Cir. 2010).
  • 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 (the EEOC regulation defining sincerely held religious belief).
  • "Costco has made a determination that facial piercings, aside from earrings, detract from the 'neat, clean and professional image' that it aims to cultivate. Such a business determination is within its discretion." Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 136 (1st Cir. 2004).
  • E.E.O.C. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006)(rejecting employer's argument that a uniform exception imposes an undue hardship by harming its "carefully cultivated image" absent evidence of actual harm).
Dress codes and religious accommodations are tricky issues!

Image: logo used in commentary on

No comments:

Post a Comment