Reference no: EM132301689

Kim cloutier was employed by Costco corp. when she hired, she had several tattoos and wore multiple earrings. when she was transferred to Costco deli department, she was informed that Costco's dress code prohibited food handlers, including deli workers from wearing any jewelry. Her supervisor instructed her to remove her earrings. Cloutier refused to do so and requested a transfer to a cashier position. She was transferred and worked as a cashier for several years. During her time as a cashier, she underwent several facial and eyebrow piercings and wore various types of facial jewelry. In 2001, Costco revised its dress code to prohibit all facial jewelry except earrings. Cloutier continued to wear her facial jewelry for several months. In June 2001 Costco began enforcing its ban on facial jewelry. Cloutier supervisor informed her that she must remove her facial jewelry and eyebrow piercing. cloutier returned to work the next day wearing her facial jewelry and eyebrow piercing when confronted by her supervisor, she insisted that she was a member of the church of body modification, and wearing the facial jewelry was part of her religion. Costco then offered her to wear plastic retainers or to cover the eyebrow piercing with a band-aid. Cloutier rejected that offer, stating that her beliefs required her to display all of her facial piercings at all times. She maintained that the only acceptable accommodation would be to excuse her from Costco dress code and allow her to wear facial jewelry while at work. Costco's replied that such an accommodation would interfere with the ability to maintain a professional appearance and would thus create an undue hardship on Costco business. Cloutier filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, cloutier filed suit against Costco under title VII. How should the court rule on her suit? Explain your answer.