Muslim Woman sues Abercrombie

[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...