discrimination claims have also upheld dress code policies that, like Costco’s, are designed to appeal to customer preference or to promote a professional public image. E.g., Hussein v. The Waldorf-Astoria, 134 F.Supp.2d 591, 599 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (“Some courts have found that clean-shavenness is a bona fide occupational qualification in certain businesses and, in those situations, as long as the employer’s grooming requirement is not directed at religion, enforcing the policy is not an unlawful discriminatory practice.”), aff'd, 31 Fed.Appx. 740 (2d Cir.2002) (unpublished). The majority of religious discrimination cases in this arena appear to involve policies regulating facial hair. E.g., Hussein, 134 F.Supp.2d 591; EEOC v. Sambo’s of Georgia, Inc., 530 F.Supp. 86 (N.D.Ga.1981) (<HOLDING>); cf. Woods, 420 F.Supp. at 43 (upholding
holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding constitutional a statute exempting from taxation properties owned by religious organizations used as homes for the aged and operated notforprofit holding that exempting a sikh job applicant whose religious practice required that he wear a beard from a restaurants nofacialhair policy would constitute undue hardship holding states may make nondiscriminatory religious practice exemptions but that such exemptions are not constitutionally required