The EEOC brought an action against CCG alleging that the company discriminated against former employees on the basis of religion known as "Onionhead" and "Harnessing Happiness." In 2007, CCG executives hired the CEO's aunt to fix a deteriorating corporate culture. She had developed a program called Onionhead as a multi-purpose conflict resolution tool for children and implemented it in the CCG workplace. According to employees, the Onionhead program required them to use candles instead of lights to prevent demons from entering the workplace; conduct chants and prayers in the workplace; and respond to emails relating to God, spirituality, demons, Satan, and divine destinies. The employees alleged that they were terminated either because they rejected Onionhead's beliefs or because of their own non-Onionhead religious beliefs. Their Title VII claim also alleges disparate treatment, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation of these employees.

The federal courts use a standard articulated in Patrick v LeFevre (2nd Cir. 1984) to determine whether a given set of beliefs constitutes a religion for purposes of Title VII. The framework has two prongs:

1. Whether the beliefs are sincerely held and 2. Whether they are, in [the believer'] own scheme of things, religious."

CCG has filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Onionhead is not a religion, and thus the EEOC has no Title VII claim. You are the Judge.How would you rule, based on the legal standard in the LeFevre case above? Use IRAC to analyze this claim and explain your ruling.,