No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Kelly Services, finding no discrimination in Kelly's refusal to refer Asthma Suliman for a position at Nahan Printing due to her religious khimar, as the employer's dress code was motivated by legitimate safety concerns and Kelly made no finding of discrimination.
What happened: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Kelly Services, a staffing agency, over religious discrimination. The case involved Asthma Suliman, who wore a khimar (religious head covering) as part of her Muslim faith. Kelly Services refused to refer her for a job at Nahan Printing because the company had a dress code that didn't allow head coverings. Kelly said this was due to safety concerns at the workplace.
What the court decided: The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Kelly Services. The court found that Kelly Services did not discriminate against Suliman. Instead, the court determined that the company's dress code restrictions were based on legitimate workplace safety reasons, not religious bias. The court granted summary judgment, meaning Kelly Services won without needing a full trial.
Why this matters for workers: This ruling shows that employers may be able to restrict religious clothing or symbols if they can prove genuine safety concerns exist. However, workers should know that employers must still try to find reasonable accommodations for religious practices when possible. If you face similar issues, document everything and consider whether the safety concerns are truly necessary or if alternatives could work.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.