May managers ever comment on an employee's religious jewelry? A federal court sitting in Oregon recently considered that question.

What happened. Starbucks hired a barista at its Cornelius store in March 2004. During her first 3 months, she received four corrective action notices about attendance. After the fourth, she was put on a corrective action plan, but she completed it and was transferred to Starbucks' Hillsboro store in August 2004. At Hillsboro, she began to wear a necklace of a Wiccan symbol. (Wicca is an ancient, earth-centered religion.) Two store managers hinted that it was offensive and detrimental to her employment, and guessed that customers might mistake her for a Satan worshipper.

The barista, who claimed that other employees wore Christian symbols without such comments, asked Starbucks' HR department whether company policy barred the wearing of such symbols. According to the barista, HR told her that she could wear the necklace. At Hillsboro, she received three more corrective action notices concerning attendance. She was eventually terminated on a day on which she was scheduled to work: Although she did not show up, she claimed she had informed her manager she would be unavailable because of a medical appointment. In the wake of her termination, she sued Starbucks for religious discrimination.

What the court said. To make out a good initial showing of religious bias, she had to show that: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated differently, or other circumstances surrounding her termination gave rise to an inference of discrimination.

Starbucks said that her attendance problems prevented her from showing that she was qualified for her position. The court responded that because her performance reviews showed that she was working satisfactorily, she was qualified for her position. Starbucks also contested her ability to demonstrate the fourth criterion, but the court said that circumstances surrounding her termination gave rise to an inference of discrimination: She received negative comments from managers about her religion and religious necklace, but other employees wore Christian jewelry with impunity. The court said that there was a genuine issue of material fact about the content and frequency of these comments, and that because they were serious enough to send her to HR, she raised an inference of discrimination.

The court then asked Starbucks to show that it had a nondiscriminatory reason for its action and accepted the company's showing of her attendance problems. In response, the court said, she had raised genuine questions about the company's reason, including the managers' comments. The court decided that a reasonable fact finder could conclude that her attendance record was pretext for her termination and allowed the case to proceed to trial. Hedum v. Starbucks, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, No. CV 07-0024-MO (2/7/08).

Point to remember: Many religions began on the margins of established faiths, and the marginality of a belief system does not permit an employer to comment negatively on the sincerity of an employee's beliefs or take those beliefs into account in employment actions.