Muslim Woman sues Abercrombie

[lartinos]

Muslim woman sues Abercrombie & Fitch over hijab - Boston.com
SAN FRANCISCO—A former stockroom worker for Abercrombie & Fitch Co. sued the clothing retailer in federal court Monday, saying she was illegally fired after refusing to remove her Muslim headscarf while on the job.


Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!
ShareThis
Hani Khan said a manager at the company's Hollister Co. store at the Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo hired her while she was wearing her hijab. The manager said it was OK to wear it as long as it was in company colors, Khan said.

Four months later, the 20-year-old says a district manager and human resources manager asked if she could remove the hijab while working, and she was suspended and then fired for refusing to do so.

It's the latest employment discrimination charge against the company's so-called "look policy," which critics say means images of mostly white, young, athletic-looking people. The New Albany, Ohio-based company has said it does not tolerate discrimination.

Still, Abercrombie has been the target of numerous discrimination lawsuits, including a federal class action brought by black, Hispanic and Asian employees and job applicants that was settled for $40 million in 2004. The company admitted no wrongdoing, though it was forced to implement new programs and policies to increase diversity.

"Growing up in this country where the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, I felt let down," Khan, now a college student studying political science, said at a news conference. "This case is about principles, the right to be able to express your religion freely and be able to work in this country."

Abercrombie defended its record in a comment provided to The Associated Press, saying diversity in its stores "far exceeds the diversity in the population of the United States."

"We comply with the law regarding reasonable religious accommodation, and we will continue to do so," said Rocky Robbins, the company's general counsel. "We are confident that when this matter is tried, a jury will find that we have fully complied with the law."

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco comes after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in September that Khan was fired illegally. Khan's lawsuit was filed in conjunction with the EEOC's lawsuit.

It is not the first time the company has been charged with discriminating against Muslim women over the wearing of a hijab.

In 2009, Samantha Elauf, who was 17 at the time, filed a federal lawsuit in Tulsa, Okla., alleging the company rejected her for a job because she was wearing a hijab. That case is still ongoing.

The EEOC filed another lawsuit for the same reason, saying the company denied work to a hijab-wearing woman who applied for a stocking position in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store at the Great Mall in Milpitas, Calif.

Khan's attorney said her client is looking to get Abercrombie to change its "look policy" to allow religious headscarves to be worn by employees, and for unspecified damages. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal and state civil rights and employment laws.

"Abercrombie prides itself on requiring what it calls a natural classic American style. But there's nothing American about discriminating against someone because of their religion," said Araceli Martinez-Olguin, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center.

"Such a look policy cannot be squared with our shared values. No worker should have to choose between their religion and their job."

 

[AFeedz]

Breaking News: Hollister Co. is still full of douchebags.

 

[mrplunkey]

1) In terms of doing the right thing, they should let her wear it, especially if they hired her while wearing it.

2) It's not the government's job to make sure Ambercrombe plays nice.

3) Freedom of religion means the government can't persecute or promote your religion. It shouldn't mean companys can't.

4) We have too many BS frivolous lawsuits like this.

5) Technically she should lose (but she'll almost certainly win), but that doesn't mean Ambercrombe is still full of dutchbags.

 

[PICK3]

1) In terms of doing the right thing, they should let her wear it, especially if they hired her while wearing it.

2) It's not the government's job to make sure Hollister plays nice.

3) Freedom of religion means the government can't persecute or promote your religion. It shouldn't mean companys can't.

4) We have too many BS frivolous lawsuits like this.

5) Technically she should lose (but she'll almost certainly win), but that doesn't mean Hollister is still full of dutchbags.

want to see the getup my employer makes me wear?

 

[AFeedz]

1) In terms of doing the right thing, they should let her wear it, especially if they hired her while wearing it.

2) It's not the government's job to make sure Ambercrombe plays nice.

3) Freedom of religion means the government can't persecute or promote your religion. It shouldn't mean companys can't.

4) We have too many BS frivolous lawsuits like this.

5) Technically she should lose (but she'll almost certainly win), but that doesn't mean Ambercrombe is still full of dutchbags.

You're saying they are not douchebags?

And why should she technically lose?

 

[mrplunkey]

want to see the getup my employer makes me wear?

No, because they still have the picture up at Cutter's.

 

[miplank]

You're saying they are not douchebags?

And why should she technically lose?

I think what he meant to say is afeedz should stfu

 

[PICK3]

No, because they still have the picture up at Cutter's.

wtf???

 

[mrplunkey]

You're saying they are not douchebags?

And why should she technically lose?

They are dutchbags, but employers should have the right to determine how employees dress, particularly if they are near other employees or the public.

Set the religious angle aside for a second. If she had wanted to work barefoot and they prevented it, would that be allowed? What if she wanted to wear a shirt that showed all but her nipples? Maybe she has a really cozy pair of sweat pants and a floppy shirt that still shows her muffin-top oozing over the sides. Should they be able to correct that?

 

[smurf2]

blah

 

[lartinos]

I used to work there because of the pretty girls, That was fun. Every manager there already has to take that sensitivity training. I find it hard to believe the district manager told her to take it off.

 

[AFeedz]

They are dutchbags, but employers should have the right to determine how employees dress, particularly if they are near other employees or the public.

Set the religious angle aside for a second. If she had wanted to work barefoot and they prevented it, would that be allowed? What if she wanted to wear a shirt that showed all but her nipples? Maybe she has a really cozy pair of sweat pants and a floppy shirt that still shows her muffin-top oozing over the sides. Should they be able to correct that?

Is there a religion that requires floppy shirts that can't hide cozy sweatpant induced muffin tops? No? Didn't think so.

The problem is that they won't allow a piece of clothing in accordance with her religion. You don't see people suing over Abercrombie's other rules, like the fact that you're not allowed to wear black or That their jeans must be cuffed at the bottom or that they can only wear flip flops or Vans slip on shoes.

Point is, having a clothing policy in general isn't the problem here and nobody is arguing that Abercrombie doesn't have the right to enforce one.

 

[miplank]

Is there a religion that requires floppy shirts that can't hide cozy sweatpant induced muffin tops? No? Didn't think so.

The problem is that they won't allow a piece of clothing in accordance with her religion. You don't see people suing over Abercrombie's other rules, like the fact that you're not allowed to wear black or That their jeans must be cuffed at the bottom or that they can only wear flip flops or Vans slip on shoes.

Point is, having a clothing policy in general isn't the problem here and nobody is arguing that Abercrombie doesn't have the right to enforce one.

Didn't I tell you to stfu?

 

[AFeedz]

Didn't I tell you to stfu?

Didn't you notice I ignored you?

 

[Sub-Zero]

i thought they hired employees as "models" so that if they didnt fit the image of the store they could fire them?

 

[PICK3]

Way to piss off the terrorists Abercrombie

 

[miplank]

Didn't you notice I ignored you?

But now you have acknowledged me so stfu

 

[lartinos]

i thought they hired employees as "models" so that if they didnt fit the image of the store they could fire them?

She is arguing that she was hired with the hoodie on.
The honest truth is that abercrombie is trying to sell an image and that hood is not part of it. This person is fishing for money. Abercrombie already had to pay out 40 million a few years ago I think.

 

[PICK3]

She is arguing that she was hired with the hoodie on.

ololololol! @ hoodie

 

[miplank]

Lololololo

 

[Sub-Zero]

remember that one chick who was hired to teach without the hoodie on, and then tried to say she refused to teach without it bcz of her religion even tho she interviewed without it lol

 

[binö]

muslims cry and bitch too much stfu already

 

[nefertiti]

If she was indeed wearing the headscarf when they hired her, they should have either not hired her if it was an issue or let her wear it. I dislike frivilous lawsuits as much as anyone, but if her story is the truth, they handled the whole situation pretty poorly from an HR perspective.

 

[javaguru]

You're saying they are not douchebags?

And why should she technically lose?

The constitution only applies to the government....there are special rules for protected classes (blacks because of slavery and historic discrimination)....I could give you a complicated legal answer but that's what it boils down too.

 

[canadianhitman]

She should have been told up-front that the headscarf was a no-go if she wanted to work there.

BUT, she should still lose, since businesses change employee uniforms and dress codes from time to time...they have that right, and if you refuse to comply, they can get rid of you. All they have to do is make an official policy change to expressly forbid covering the head with hats, scarves, bandanas, ect...and if I were on that jury, she'd be fuct.

 

[puddlemonkey]

practice your religion on your own time



kthxdie

 

[nefertiti]

practice your religion on your own time



kthxdie

That doesn't work when your religious practice deals with daily dress. I'm not saying abercrombie should be forced to hire people who have religious clothing restrictions, I'm saying if it was an issue, they never should have hired her and allowed it for four months. Doing so and taking up issue later is on them, not her. Just sloppy and stupid. Have a policy that's clear, enforce it from the point of hire.

 

[javaguru]

That doesn't work when your religious practice deals with daily dress. I'm not saying abercrombie should be forced to hire people who have religious clothing restrictions, I'm saying if it was an issue, they never should have hired her and allowed it for four months. Doing so and taking up issue later is on them, not her. Just sloppy and stupid. Have a policy that's clear, enforce it from the point of hire.

I'll tell you exactly what happened...the manager hired her because she didn't want to discriminate and then reality probably hit when corporate looked at sales and complaints from their customers.

For some reason, people think religion has a special status in society...it's a choice like anything else. If the woman in question had a swastika tattoo on her forehead because she believes strongly in that ideology, a choice, she would never have been hired..... If the woman in question chose to only speak arabic then she wouldn't have been hired.

This lawsuit will probably be settled for a shitload of money because a manager chose to ignore the corporate handbook about hiring people that "reinforce the brand" and made an amendment based on agency law because they wanted to be inclusive...

No good deed ever goes unpunished...

 

[the.gladiator1987]

Its just a stupid hat, come the fuck on, just take it off

 

[nefertiti]

I'll tell you exactly what happened...the manager hired her because she didn't want to discriminate and then reality probably hit when corporate looked at sales and complaints from their customers.

For some reason, people think religion has a special status in society...it's a choice like anything else. If the woman in question had a swastika tattoo on her forehead because she believes strongly in that ideology, a choice, she would never have been hired..... If the woman in question chose to only speak arabic then she wouldn't have been hired.

This lawsuit will probably be settled for a shitload of money because a manager chose to ignore the corporate handbook about hiring people that "reinforce the brand" and made an amendment based on agency law because they wanted to be inclusive...

No good deed ever goes unpunished...

That's still the manager's fault, thus my comment about sloppiness. I'm not defending religion, or the right to express it in all venues with no consequence. I'm speaking as someone with hiring practice that I would never have hired anyone who, right off the bat, was going to be unable to comply with conditions of employment. If someone has a child and can only work x hours a week, I don't hire them and allow them to have that schedule, only to fire them later for not being more available. Either it's ok and I hire them, or I find someone who can work the hours I need. Hiring someone who can't do the job (in this case, act as a working model for the label) is not a good deed, it's stupid, because sooner or later it's going to be an issue. As a manager, whoever hired her failed at their job for exposing the company to this lawsuit.

 

[puddlemonkey]

That doesn't work when your religious practice deals with daily dress. I'm not saying abercrombie should be forced to hire people who have religious clothing restrictions, I'm saying if it was an issue, they never should have hired her and allowed it for four months. Doing so and taking up issue later is on them, not her. Just sloppy and stupid. Have a policy that's clear, enforce it from the point of hire.

No

 

[puddlemonkey]

I'm not saying abercrombie should be forced to hire people who have religious clothing restrictions

Look what happens when they don't.

In 2009, Samantha Elauf, who was 17 at the time, filed a federal lawsuit in Tulsa, Okla., alleging the company rejected her for a job because she was wearing a hijab. That case is still ongoing.

The EEOC filed another lawsuit for the same reason, saying the company denied work to a hijab-wearing woman who applied for a stocking position in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store at the Great Mall in Milpitas, Calif.

My only question is, how did they come to the conclusion they weren't hired based on a hijab?

 

[puddlemonkey]

My only question is, how did they come to the conclusion they weren't hired based on a hijab?

Simple womanomics monkey, they're female therefor entitled to work wherever they want and for whoever they want. To deny them of this sexist, unethical and more importantly, illegal.

 

[puddlemonkey]

shit, wrong user name.

 

[pdaddyII]

i thought they hired employees as "models" so that if they didnt fit the image of the store they could fire them?

Years ago I worked as the shirtless window douche for A&F and my brother had all his friends come to the mall and make fun of me. I did that shit for one day... nohomo

 

[nefertiti]

No

lol....I don't see what's so complicated here, puds. If you feel forced to hire people who wear religious dress, you can't honestly think that hiring them and then asking them not to wear it will not lead to a mess. I am, again, strictly speaking from an HR standpoint. It's dumb and they should have known better than to think anything BUT this would happen.

Your argument that it's some woman entitlement thing falls flat considering they allegedly allowed this for four months and then decided it wasn't ok. The teacher with the burka pulled the bait and switch...in this instance the company did. Neither is ethical.

Again, not saying I support the lawsuit. But I do fault the manager for opening the door.

 

[puddlemonkey]

No means no

 

[javaguru]

That's still the manager's fault, thus my comment about sloppiness. I'm not defending religion, or the right to express it in all venues with no consequence. I'm speaking as someone with hiring practice that I would never have hired anyone who, right off the bat, was going to be unable to comply with conditions of employment. If someone has a child and can only work x hours a week, I don't hire them and allow them to have that schedule, only to fire them later for not being more available. Either it's ok and I hire them, or I find someone who can work the hours I need. Hiring someone who can't do the job (in this case, act as a working model for the label) is not a good deed, it's stupid, because sooner or later it's going to be an issue. As a manager, whoever hired her failed at their job for exposing the company to this lawsuit.

That's what you get for promoting a woman to manager.... Emotional thinking caused the problem and I guarantee it was a chick (or gay dude) that hired her, it is retail, because she was thinking emotionally. I'm not hating on women, there is a reason HR is dominated by women, but men and women approach problems differently...wiminz are good at some things and men at others.

 

[jackangel]

omega would have set that bitch str8

 

[mrplunkey]

Is there a religion that requires floppy shirts that can't hide cozy sweatpant induced muffin tops? No? Didn't think so.

The problem is that they won't allow a piece of clothing in accordance with her religion. You don't see people suing over Abercrombie's other rules, like the fact that you're not allowed to wear black or That their jeans must be cuffed at the bottom or that they can only wear flip flops or Vans slip on shoes.

Point is, having a clothing policy in general isn't the problem here and nobody is arguing that Abercrombie doesn't have the right to enforce one.

The fact that it's religiously-related is irrelevant.

What if my religion believes that women should be 100% subservient to men? Does that mean that as a store salesperson that I get to tell female customers what to purchase?

What if I want to carry one of these religious knives?

Or maybe I like dressing like this:

A expectation of dress is exactly that. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice your own, but should equally mean that others shouldn't have to pay you for practicing yours.

 

[nefertiti]

The fact that it's religiously-related is irrelevant.

What if my religion believes that women should be 100% subservient to men? Does that mean that as a store salesperson that I get to tell female customers what to purchase?

What if I want to carry one of these religious knives?

Or maybe I like dressing like this:

A expectation of dress is exactly that. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice your own, but should equally mean that others shouldn't have to pay you for practicing yours.

If you tell them all that, and they say yes, I still blame them, not you. The lie that it's ok comes from them.

Here, let me put it in a puds-like woman hater language.

If a girl meets a guy who is an unapologetic asshole....and she dates him either a) thinking she will be ok with it or b) thinking she can change him....when things go foul because he's an unapologetic asshole who doesn't want to change, do you blame the guy for not conforming to being a good boyfriend, which he never promised to be, or do you blame the girl for knowing what she was getting and banking on his possible willingness to change and be the guy she wants him to be?

This has nothing to do with religion for me. You simply don't hire someone who can't do the job, even for PR. Hiring her and then trying to change her is more stereotypical woman behavior than her being hired on an honest plane where her dress was known ahead of time, and her taking issue with it suddenly being a problem.

 

[canadianhitman]

If you tell them all that, and they say yes, I still blame them, not you. The lie that it's ok comes from them.

Here, let me put it in a puds-like woman hater language.

If a girl meets a guy who is an unapologetic asshole....and she dates him either a) thinking she will be ok with it or b) thinking she can change him....when things go foul because he's an unapologetic asshole, do you blame the guy for not conforming to being a good boyfriend, which he never promised to be, or do you blame the girl for knowing what she was getting and banking on his possible willingness to change and be the guy she wants him to be?

This has nothing to do with religion for me. You simply don't hire someone who can't do the job, even for PR. Hiring her and then trying to change her is more stereotypical woman behavior than her being hired on an honest plane where her dress was known ahead of time, and her taking issue with it suddenly being a problem.

I love the way you explained that...good job!

 

[canadianhitman]

I still think there's a 'loophole' that works better from an HR standpoint though Nef...see my previous post.

 

[puddlemonkey]

Here, let me put it in a puds-like woman hater language.

wtf!

 

[nefertiti]

I love the way you explained that...good job!

lol I'm just trying to speak puds here....Not sure if you are being sarcastic haha. I think the analogy fits, though!

 

[nefertiti]

I still think there's a 'loophole' that works better from an HR standpoint though Nef...see my previous post.

I considered that...if they approach it from an altered policy, then her complaints have no grounds. It would be hard to prove if that were the case, but it would negate all my points if that is why it unfolded as it did.

 

[puddlemonkey]

If you tell them all that, and they say yes, I still blame them, not you. The lie that it's ok comes from them.

Here, let me put it in a puds-like woman hater language.

If a girl meets a guy who is an unapologetic asshole....and she dates him either a) thinking she will be ok with it or b) thinking she can change him....when things go foul because he's an unapologetic asshole, do you blame the guy for not conforming to being a good boyfriend, which he never promised to be, or do you blame the girl for knowing what she was getting and banking on his possible willingness to change and be the guy she wants him to be?

This has nothing to do with religion for me. You simply don't hire someone who can't do the job, even for PR. Hiring her and then trying to change her is more stereotypical woman behavior than her being hired on an honest plane where her dress was known ahead of time, and her taking issue with it suddenly being a problem.

What I didn't like about your original post is you made it sound like once a company puts a policy in place it can never change. Companies change their policies all the time, and rightfully so. I'm not saying this is the case with A&F as I do not have all the facts, and I know better than to listen to a media outlet with an agenda. Nonetheless, I stick by what I said before, practice your religion on your own time.

 

[puddlemonkey]

goddammit, I went to the bathroom in the middle of my post and didn't see your last comment.




but I agree with you, you're wrong.

 

[the.gladiator1987]

i still say take ur fuckin hat off, i should make up my own religion called Gladianity, and say that the only attire I can wear is "baller attire"

 

[nefertiti]

What I didn't like about your original post is you made it sound like once a company puts a policy in place it can never change. Companies change their policies all the time, and rightfully so. I'm not saying this is the case with A&F as I do not have all the facts, and I know better than to listen to a media outlet with an agenda. Nonetheless, I stick by what I said before, practice your religion on your own time.

If policy changed, then that's that. Her agument would be invalid. All of my points relate to the hypothetical case currently presented. Maybe not the original post, but I made that clear later.

Your comment about practicing religion on own time shows ignorance to the muslim faith, however. I'm supportive of this 27/7 public act of faith (honestly, 99% of the time a head scarf isn't going to be doing anyone an inconvenience), as well as supportive of the fact that it may lead them to have to make sacrifices in work to maintain it. It doesn't suit all jobs. If they couldn't get ANY jobs with a head scarf, I'd wonder (I had a few in my school with them and long dress and they all actually looked quite pretty in the whole gettup, and all were smart, capable honors students).

I'm sure there are plenty of jobs that aren't going to care what's on your head if it's conservative....that abercombie should have just known better.

 

[puddlemonkey]

you couldn't just leave it at you being wrong could you?

 

[nefertiti]

you couldn't just leave it at you being wrong could you?

No, because I'm not wrong.

 

[puddlemonkey]

abercombie should have just known better.

when they do that (allegedly) they get this..

In 2009, Samantha Elauf, who was 17 at the time, filed a federal lawsuit in Tulsa, Okla., alleging the company rejected her for a job because she was wearing a hijab. That case is still ongoing.

The EEOC filed another lawsuit for the same reason, saying the company denied work to a hijab-wearing woman who applied for a stocking position in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store at the Great Mall in Milpitas, Calif.

 

[nefertiti]

when they do that (allegedly) they get this..

I addressed that. Either they hire them and take the bullet of them wearing the scarf, or don't and deal with that. Hiring and then asking them not to wear it brings up the exact can of worms the that not hiring would have. Again, stupid, poor planning by management.

 

[smurf2]

i wonder if she would get hired at Hooters with that head dress on

 

[AFeedz]

The fact that it's religiously-related is irrelevant.

What if my religion believes that women should be 100% subservient to men? Does that mean that as a store salesperson that I get to tell female customers what to purchase?

What if I want to carry one of these religious knives?

Or maybe I like dressing like this:

A expectation of dress is exactly that. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice your own, but should equally mean that others shouldn't have to pay you for practicing yours.

So what's your point about telling people what to purchase? That example didn't make sense, the point of salespeople is to tell you what to purchase. They all do that. lol

My point is, from the head down this girl was dressed in compliance with the looks policy. She wasn't wearing an abaya or a sharqyat, as many girls don't. I just don't see a problem if she was dressed in line with the looks policy with a hijab on top.

It's not as though she was ignoring it altogether and was asking to be paid to stand in the middle of the store in a full-length, black abaya and help customers.

 

[75th]

i still say take ur fuckin hat off, i should make up my own religion called Gladianity, and say that the only attire I can wear is "baller attire"

HAnd-me-down sweatpants and hooded sweatshirts from old navy?

 

[zwhit]

HAnd-me-down sweatpants and hooded sweatshirts from old navy?

and J's of course

 

[the_alcatraz]

Freedom of religion goes both ways. Freedom to follow your own practices and cultural views and rights does as well. She's in the right. Offcourse, people will disagree. Ignorance is everywhere.

 

[75th]

Freedom of religion goes both ways. Freedom to follow your own practices and cultural views and rights does as well. She's in the right. Offcourse, people will disagree. Ignorance is everywhere.

Not for a privately owned company. Shes in the wrong. Ignorance is everywhere.

A private company has the right to determine what you can and cannot wear while employed.

 

[the_alcatraz]

Not for a privately owned company. Shes in the wrong. Ignorance is everywhere.

A private company has the right to determine what you can and cannot wear while employed.

Not in America. Companies get sued all the time.

The only type of companies that are allowed to fire based on looks are modeling agencies - it's in the contract.

 

[75th]

Not in America. Companies get sued all the time.

The only type of companies that are allowed to fire based on looks are modeling agencies - it's in the contract.

No.

And they didnt fire based on looks. She wasnt fired because of her weight, the color of her skin, etc.

They fired her because she refused to remove a clothing garment that they forbid her to wear.

Apples and oranges.

 

[75th]

And lol @ "companies get sued all the time" being an argument.

 

[the_alcatraz]

No.

And they didnt fire based on looks. She wasnt fired because of her weight, the color of her skin, etc.

They fired her because she refused to remove a clothing garment that they forbid her to wear.

Apples and oranges.

They didn't forbid her. They told her she CAN in the interview. Then they said she can't.

Her "hijab" is based on religious beliefs and cultural beliefs, and as a citizen of the US, both are protected by the constitution. Firing her because she doesn't want to remove "a piece of clothing" which represents her cultural and religious beliefs and upbringings is against religious freedom and I could talk about this for hours...so could every lawyer than ever studied law.

Whether it is right or wrong in your opinion does not matter. What matters is they f'd up in the eyes of the law. She's in the right.

 

[75th]

They didn't forbid her. They told her she CAN in the interview. Then they said she can't.

Her "hijab" is based on religious beliefs and cultural beliefs, and as a citizen of the US, both are protected by the constitution. Firing her because she doesn't want to remove "a piece of clothing" which represents her cultural and religious beliefs and upbringings is against religious freedom and I could talk about this for hours...so could every lawyer than ever studied law.

Whether it is right or wrong in your opinion does not matter. What matters is they f'd up in the eyes of the law. She's in the right.

lol @ not understanding the law and the protections afforded to PRIVATE companies.

 

[mrplunkey]

They didn't forbid her. They told her she CAN in the interview. Then they said she can't.

Her "hijab" is based on religious beliefs and cultural beliefs, and as a citizen of the US, both are protected by the constitution. Firing her because she doesn't want to remove "a piece of clothing" which represents her cultural and religious beliefs and upbringings is against religious freedom and I could talk about this for hours...so could every lawyer than ever studied law.

Whether it is right or wrong in your opinion does not matter. What matters is they f'd up in the eyes of the law. She's in the right.

The constitution protects her right to walk down the street wearing her hijab -- as it should. It doesn't protect her right to wear it on private property nor should it force a private business to comply with her wishes.

It's like free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want (except things like "FIRE" in a crowded theater), but your employer has the right to react to whatever you say.

Look at it this way... If I started hurling horrible insults your way on this thread and said some deplorable things, would you be forbidden to ban me since I have a constitutional right to free speech? Or would you ban my ass and be done with it?

 

[AFeedz]

lol @ not understanding the law and the protections afforded to PRIVATE companies.

What laws? Bc EEOC laws apply to private businesses.

If a complaint against a business (or some other private employer) involves race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, the business is covered by the laws we enforce if it has 15 or more employees who worked for the employer for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last).

- EEOC.gov

 

[75th]

For the last time - they didnt terminate her because of her religion.

ETA her religious beliefs, I should say.

 

[AFeedz]

For the last time - they didnt terminate her because of her religion

Ok but EEOC laws apply to private business, and if you go check what those laws are under "religion", they include laws against firing someone for religious dress like Muslim headscarves.

Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

 

[the_alcatraz]

lol @ not understanding the law and the protections afforded to PRIVATE companies.

Private companies are not above the law. I'm not sure what you are implying. This has been going on for the lingest times, different times, same discussion,

Read this:

Free exercise of religionMain article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional.

In 1993, the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment on the grounds that while the Congress could enforce the Supreme Court's interpretation of a constitutional right, the Congress could not impose its own interpretation on states and localities. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes and those laws must still meet the "compelling interest"


Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only way this woman can lose is if Abercrombi has compelling interest:

"compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct .....

This has to be substancial too...They can't just say "it doesn't fit with the image of the store, etc...

 

[the_alcatraz]

The constitution protects her right to walk down the street wearing her hijab -- as it should. It doesn't protect her right to wear it on private property nor should it force a private business to comply with her wishes.

It's like free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want (except things like "FIRE" in a crowded theater), but your employer has the right to react to whatever you say.

Look at it this way... If I started hurling horrible insults your way on this thread and said some deplorable things, would you be forbidden to ban me since I have a constitutional right to free speech? Or would you ban my ass and be done with it?

lol @ comparing RL legal practices to an internet forums about roids

 

[75th]

Ok but EEOC laws apply to private business, and if you go check what those laws are under "religion", they include laws against firing someone for religious dress like Muslim headscarves.

From the quote you provided:

Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business

A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

 

[the_alcatraz]

From the quote you provided:



A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

It's called "compelling interest" and it's NOT an easy case for them to make.

They would have to make a case saying: only white fit people are allowed in the store, because that's what our image presents...yeh, this will go down real smooth in court.

What image are they trying to promote exactly? That if you don't look like a certain demographic, you are not fit to wear our clothes?

 

[AFeedz]

From the quote you provided:



A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

Lol did you even read about this? They can't make that case. She worked in the stockroom. Meaning it's likely no customers ever saw her meaning it'd be hard to prove any loss of business or decrease in sales was any result of her hijab screwing with the Abercrombie image.

 

[75th]

It's called "compelling interest" and it's NOT an easy case for them to make.

They would have to make a case saying: only white fit people are allowed in the store, because that's what our image presents...yeh, this will go down real smooth in court.

Again, apples and oranges.

What image are they trying to promote exactly? That if you don't look like a certain demographic, you are not fit to wear our clothes?

Perhaps, but the point is that they are well within their right to promote that image.

Dont like their image? Dont shop there.

 

[75th]

Lol did you even read about this? They can't make that case. She worked in the stockroom. Meaning it's likely no customers ever saw her meaning it'd be hard to prove any loss of business or decrease in sales was any result of her hijab screwing with the Abercrombie image.

So? Appearance guidelines apply to all employees working on the premises. Just because she loaded the stockroom doesnt mean she wasnt in customers' view. Id be very surprised if that was the case.

 

[mrplunkey]

Private companies are not above the law. I'm not sure what you are implying. This has been going on for the lingest times, different times, same discussion,

Read this:

Free exercise of religionMain article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional.

In 1993, the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment on the grounds that while the Congress could enforce the Supreme Court's interpretation of a constitutional right, the Congress could not impose its own interpretation on states and localities. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes and those laws must still meet the "compelling interest"


Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only way this woman can lose is if Abercrombi has compelling interest:

"compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct .....

This has to be substancial too...They can't just say "it doesn't fit with the image of the store, etc...

LOL @ not knowing the difference between state-controlled and privately-controlled entities.

That's part of what's wrong with this country. People don't understand the difference between the government and private sector.

 

[nefertiti]

From the quote you provided:



A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

I find it hard to believe that a headscarf with otherwise secular dress would cause any sort of hardship.

Aside from that, they allowed her to wear it for four months.

 

[mrplunkey]

I need to land an NFL job then complain that my religion prevents me from engaging in violence on Sundays.

I'll sue and make a billion dollars. Religious freedom FTMFW!

 

[AFeedz]

So? Appearance guidelines apply to all employees working on the premises. Just because she loaded the stockroom doesnt mean she wasnt in customers' view. Id be very surprised if that was the case.

Really? Obv youve never worked retail, bc I've worked in several retail stock rooms. At some I never saw customers at all. At others, I'd go out maybe twice a day to restock clothes. MAYBE 10 minutes. Stock rooms aren't in customer views in retail and they aren't at Abercrombie.

She likely wasn't seen at all, and if she was maybe for minutes out of all the time she worked there. So I find it pretty difficult to believe Abercrombie will possibly be able to make a proven argument that she affected business, meaning what they did was unlawful.

 

[75th]

Really? Obv youve never worked retail, bc I've worked in several retail stock rooms. At some I never saw customers at all. At others, I'd go out maybe twice a day to restock clothes. MAYBE 10 minutes. Stock rooms aren't in customer views in retail and they aren't at Abercrombie.

She likely wasn't seen at all, and if she was maybe for minutes out of all the time she worked there. So I find it pretty difficult to believe Abercrombie will possibly be able to make a proven argument that she affected business, meaning what they did was unlawful.

Yes I have worked retail. At a few places. Both in customer service and in the back. Same as at restaurants. I was always required to be well groomed and to abide by the company's image standards.

That "MAYBE 10 minutes" makes Abercrombie's case, just FYI.

 

[75th]

Aside from that, they allowed her to wear it for four months.

Indeed, but then upper management put the kibosh on it. Not saying it doesnt suck - I'm just saying they didnt break the law.

 

[nefertiti]

I need to land an NFL job then complain that my religion prevents me from engaging in violence on Sundays.

I'll sue and make a billion dollars. Religious freedom FTMFW!

If you got the job and told them that your religion prevented you from engaging in violence on sundays when you were hired, and they hired you anyway, only to fire you for it later, you'd have a case. AGAIN, I say, who's fault is it when a company hires someone they know right away cannot or will not comply with employment regulations? Not hers, she didn't lie about anything.

You two seem to be forgetting that she was hired with the headscarf, was told she could wear it if it was in company colors, and then four months later was fired for it. It's not like she got hired in secular dress and the headscarf thing came up later.

 

[AFeedz]

Yes I have worked retail. At a few places. Both in customer service and in the back. Same as at restaurants. I was always required to be well groomed and to abide by the company's image standards.

That "MAYBE 10 minutes" makes Abercrombie's case, just FYI.

I had to abide by the dress code too, but that doesn't matter. Whether customers saw it and it altered their purchasing decisions matters.

So yeah maybe that 10 minutes could make their case, but you said that'd be easy. I say, good fucking luck proving that any loss of sales occured during that exact 10 minutes. Abercrombie would have to prove that any lost sales happened during the few and far between moments this girl was on the floor, which a. I doubt happened at all and b. Good luck proving if it did.

 

[nefertiti]

Indeed, but then upper management put the kibosh on it. Not saying it doesnt suck - I'm just saying they didnt break the law.

And I'm not saying they don't have a right to deny someone who doesn't fit their image. I'm saying it's sloppy to make a point after the fact and they brought this on themselves. Once it was done, they would have been better off letting it be and they should have known it would do more harm than good from a PR standpoint to fire her.

 

[75th]

And I'm not saying they don't have a right to deny someone who doesn't fit their image. I'm saying it's sloppy to make a point after the fact and they brought this on themselves. Once it was done, they would have been better off letting it be and they should have known it would do more harm than good from a PR standpoint to fire her.

I agree, but my point was to folks like Alc - who have absolutely no understanding of US law - trying to say that what AF did was illegal.

Its not.

 

[mrplunkey]

If you got the job and told them that your religion prevented you from engaging in violence on sundays when you were hired, and they hired you anyway, only to fire you for it later, you'd have a case. AGAIN, I say, who's fault is it when a company hires someone they know right away cannot or will not comply with employment regulations? Not hers, she didn't lie about anything.

You two seem to be forgetting that she was hired with the headscarf, was told she could wear it if it was in company colors, and then four months later was fired for it. It's not like she got hired in secular dress and the headscarf thing came up later.

The decisions of front-line employees and middle managers get over-ridden by their managers every day.

A reversed decision made at a lower level doesn't bind the company. If that were the case, you'd be able to sue your supervisor every time they changed your work schedule.

 

[AFeedz]

I agree, but my point was to folks like Alc - who have absolutely no understanding of US law - trying to say that what AF did was illegal.

Its not.

Unless they can prove they lost business because of her, it is against the law.

 

[75th]

Unless they can prove they lost business because of her, it is against the law.

Jesus.

 

[nefertiti]

The decisions of front-line employees and middle managers get over-ridden by their managers every day.

A reversed decision made at a lower level doesn't bind the company. If that were the case, you'd be able to sue your supervisor every time they changed your work schedule.

Not disagreeing here....see my above post about how my main point in this argument is this was a stupid thing for them to make a point over and they should have known it would turn into a shit storm. I hardly think her once and a while presence on the floor in secular clothes and a headscarf did them as much image harm as the fuss over her firing has.

 

[mrplunkey]

Unless they can prove they lost business because of her, it is against the law.

Where did that come from?

There is no legal basis for that concept.

 

[AFeedz]

Jesus.

I know, right? I thought I'd already quoted the law that said exactly that.

 

[75th]

I know, right? I thought I'd already quoted the law that said exactly that.

No, just the fact that you dont understand what youre talking about with regards to how this works.

 

[miplank]

Unless they can prove they lost business because of her, it is against the law.

I'll testify that I was about to make a large purchase at AF and saw a bish in some halloween costume and walked out.


wurd

 

[AFeedz]

Where did that come from?

There is no legal basis for that concept.

It comes from the EEOC Laws, Guidelines and Regulations that I've already quoted. But here it is again:

Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

Really, the only way to prove an act created any hardship would be to prove that money was lost, no? Which, as I've said, considering this girl worked in the stock room, would be hard to do.

 

[miplank]

It comes from the EEOC Laws, Guidelines and Regulations that I've already quoted. But here it is again:



Really, the only way to prove an act created any hardship would be to prove that money was lost, no? Which, as I've said, considering this girl worked in the stock room, would be hard to do.

see post #94

 

[AFeedz]

No, just the fact that you dont understand what youre talking about with regards to how this works.

Just because you dont agree with or like what I'm saying, doesn't mean I don't understand.

I think the quoted rule is pretty damn clear.

 

[75th]

Ok.


Except that its not that I dont agree - its that you dont understand some of the protections afforded to private companies.

You do know that, to all new employees, AF distributes a "Look Book" which details - specifically - what they can and cannot wear. A hijab is not one of them.

Explain how the government hasnt come in and shut down the entire organization, seeing as how they have been doing this for 10+ years.

 

[zwhit]

wurd

Good bro to let Strongbow post from your account

 

[75th]

Also, explain - if what theyre doing is so illegal - how the only dress code policy suit the company has lost was the one that required their employees to specifically purchase AF clothing.