Muslim Woman sues Abercrombie

[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.