Does Cloutier have a case? Explain your answer

Kim Cloutier was employed by Costco Corp. When she was hired, she had several tattoos and wore multiple earrings. When she was transferred to Costco’s 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’s supervisor informed her that she must remove her facial jewelry and eyebrow piercing. Cloutier returned to work the next day wearing the facial jewelry and eyebrow piercing, and when confronted by her supervisor, she insisted that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification [see http://www.uscobm.com] and wearing the facial jewelry was part of her religion. Costco then offered to let her wear plastic retainers (to keep her piercings open) 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’s dress code and allow her to wear facial jewelry while at work. Costco replied that such an accommodation would interfere with its ability to maintain a professional appearance and would thus form an undue hardship on Costco’s business. Cloutier filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII.

Does Cloutier have a case? Explain your answer.