The employer instituted a dress code that included a “no facial jewelry” requirement. An employee who wore facial jewelry informed the employer that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and that the policy conflicted with her religious practices. The employee was eventually suspended and then terminated for non-compliance with the policy. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on the grounds that it had offered a reasonable accommodation that the employee refused, even though the offer of accommodation did not come until after a charge was filed with the EEOC and the parties were in mediation.

1. Should courts consider accommodations offered after an adverse employment action has been taken, in determining whether an employer has failed to offer a reasonable accommodation?

2. Does Costco meet its burden of showing that there is no accommodation acceptable to Cloutier that it could provide without undue hardship? Under the logic of this decision, would employers ever have to make exceptions to established dress and appearance codes in order to accommodate religious practice?