United States Seventh Circuit

In plaintiff's suit against a security firm, claiming that it violated Title VII when it did not hire him as a security guard because plaintiff would not cut his dreadlocks, judgment that defendant did not engage in religious discrimination when it refused to hire plaintiff on account of his dreadlocked hairstyle is affirmed where: 1) the court's decision to credit the interviewing manager's testimony that plaintiff never informed him that religious belief required him to wear dreadlocks is both plausible from the evidence and sufficiently explained in the opinion; 2) plaintiff waived his claim that the district court erred by preventing him from testifying about his EEOC intake questionnaire; and 3) plaintiff's claims that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant on the issue of whether he mitigated his damages and whether he was entitled to punitive damages are moot.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/15/2010
• Decided 08/27/2010
• Published 08/27/2010

Judges

• BAUER

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel