Chain To Get Sued Over Headgear

N

nasum

CAGiversary!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090924/us_time/08599192560700

Of interest:
Given the hyper-sexualized advertising that Abercrombie & Fitch has long embraced, it is no surprise that the company encourages its employees to let their hair down. But is the company practicing discrimination if it won't hire a young woman who covers her head for religious reasons? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Last week the EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie on behalf of Samantha Elauf, a 19-year-old community college student from Tulsa, Okla., who is Muslim. The suit alleges that Abercrombie "refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of the headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy," or employee dress code. The suit says that Abercrombie "failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy. These actions constitute discrimination against Ms. Elauf on the basis of religion."

----------------------

Well, no... They didn't refuse to hire her because of her religion, they refused to hire her because she wouldn't go in to work without her hijab. It's her relgion that prevented her from getting a job (and why would she want a job working in a store full of hethens anyways?!?) but apparently that can't be said.

I'm getting so sick of this kind of crap. How far must we bend over to accomodate people and where does it end?
 
I work for the company that had to make "special accomodations" for muslim cashiers that refused to handle packaged pork products... Needless to say, I agree with the ridiculousness about some of these lawsuits but its a small price to pay for "tolerance," "understanding," and political correctness I suppose.
 
Honestly, doesn't seem like a big deal for her to be able to wear a scarf on her head. Abercrombie are assholes, and I hope their apparent financial problems (from the article) lead them to go out of business.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Honestly, doesn't seem like a big deal for her to be able to wear a scarf on her head. Abercrombie are assholes, and I hope their apparent financial problems (from the article) lead them to go out of business.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Plus, there is a big difference between her wearing a headscarf to work and her refusing to handle her company's products due to her religious beliefs (like the previous posted example of the cashier that won't handle pork products). I wouldn't hire a cashier that refused to touch the food products or overpriced shirts. But someone who wanted to wear a headscarf to work? No problem.

(And as a small aside...we have a few Muslim customers come into my work, and some of their women wear headscarves. And some of those head coverings are gorgeous...multi-colored silks, beadwork, etc., very classy looking, which is probably not the look Abercrombie is going for.)
 
nasum her religion only stopped her from getting the job because the company wouldn't tolerate it. That's discrimination.

Like ramstoria said. Headscarf = not impairing her ability to the job. Not handling pork = impairing ability to do job.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I work for the company that had to make "special accomodations" for muslim cashiers that refused to handle packaged pork products... Needless to say, I agree with the ridiculousness about some of these lawsuits but its a small price to pay for "tolerance," "understanding," and political correctness I suppose.[/QUOTE]

I work in a profession where overtime is a given. One time I was on a project with this guy who, after joining up, informed the boss that part of his religion was that he had to quit work and be home before sundown. Needless to say the slack was picked up by everyone else, especially in winter months.

Let's be honest about the price - it isn't small. Yet Americans seem to have a weird communist soft spot when it comes to the price of religious obligations (or maybe it's just the fear of a lawsuit talking).
 
Many jobs have dress codes. So it is ok to ignore the dress code as long as the reason is religious?

I don't think wearing a scarf is a big deal either but wasn't her job denial due to failure to adhere to the pre-written dress code?
 
Aside from the fact that I believe a private employer should be free to make the decisions of who they want to hire (thus associate with) based on whatever criteria they desire, I do have to say, I don't understand why "religion" is a protected class. It's not like gender or race where the individual has no choice in the matter.

Beyond that, employers are dumb as a sack of rocks. When you choose not to hire someone, you are not required by law to give that individual any reason as to why you've not selected them for the job. Just say "No, but thank you for your interest." and be on your merry way.
 
This country is so bigoted, it's unreasonable. You can do whatever you want so long as you're Christian and white.

The KKK wants to parade around, screaming how they want to murder blacks, and the city will let them due to the sacred "free speech". Don't forget a cross on Christmas to parade their "Jews killed Jesus" nonsense.

Someone needs to wear something due to their non-God religion, and they will be punished.


Also amazing that, for ever supposed good law, there are 5 loopholes to bypass it.
 
I think this is just about the same as someone who can't do a job that requires working on Saturday or Sunday. If you can't work on Sunday, don't expect an NFL team to hire you. If you can't do what the company requires for a job, don't expect they are going to ask you to do the job. What's next, an evangelical suing a porn studio for not hiring her because she refuses to take off her clothes for religious reasons? That seems entirely the same to me.

[quote name='Diosoth']Someone needs to wear something due to their non-God religion, and they will be punished.[/QUOTE]

Link?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think this is just about the same as someone who can't do a job that requires working on Saturday or Sunday. If you can't work on Sunday, don't expect an NFL team to hire you. If you can't do what the company requires for a job, don't expect they are going to ask you to do the job. What's next, an evangelical suing a porn studio for not hiring her because she refuses to take off her clothes for religious reasons? That seems entirely the same to me.[/QUOTE]

Really? Wearing a scarf on your head in a store that sells clothes is like going into porn and saying you don't want to get naked? Really?

I'd hate to see what other things are "entirely the same" by your logic. fucking a person and fucking an orangutan? Having an abortion and kicking a child in front of a moving car? (Wait, I think you would agree with that one...maybe I do see a pattern here...)
 
[quote name='bmulligan']fuck, you mean to tell me I might have to get my hot wings served by a chick in a scarf, a robe, and a mustache?[/QUOTE]


exactly... prety soon we will have guys in daisy dukes flaunting around hooters...

No christmas trees in airports as it offends, yet all this other BS.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']No christmas trees in airports as it offends, yet all this other BS.[/QUOTE]

Are you referring to that one overreaction in Seattle over 2 years ago that was eventually reversed?

Oh noez XMAS WARZ!!!1!
 
I've never heard of anyone being fired for wearing a necklace with a cross on it or for going into work with those stupid ashes on their head. Are ashes on the head part of the dress code? Would anyone dare say anything to somebody for having ashes on their head?

The bigotry in this thread is blatant. I bet the few of you siding with the corp. on this issue would more quickly defend the KKKs constitutional right to gather peacefully than you are defending this girls constitutional right to peacefully wear a headscarf. Are you guys third-world dictators? You sound like Ahmadinejad the way you are denouncing our freedom of religion.

Will you dare argue our freedom has gone too far and that we should have less?
I would have to bet that if you are it is only because it is not your religion being targeted.
If only there truly was a separation of church and state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HowStern']I've never heard of anyone being fired for wearing a necklace with a cross on it or for going into work with those stupid ashes on their head. Are ashes on the head part of the dress code? Would anyone dare say anything to somebody for having ashes on their head?

The bigotry in this thread is blatant. I bet the few of you siding with the corp. on this issue would more quickly defend the KKKs constitutional right to gather peacefully than you are defending this girls constitutional right to peacefully wear a headscarf. Are you guys third-world dictators? You sound like Ahmadinejad the way you are denouncing our freedom of religion.

Will you dare argue our freedom has gone too far and that we should have less?
I would have to bet that if you are it is only because it is not your religion being targeted.
If only there truly was a separation of church and state.[/QUOTE]

I guess I didn't realize Abercrombie was a part of the government now...
 
I guess you didn't realize that was a separate paragraph. Meaning I was talking about something different than the first and second paragraph. Meaning I was no longer on the subject of abercrombie but about religious norms and standards.

Do you know how paragraphs work?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Really? Wearing a scarf on your head in a store that sells clothes is like going into porn and saying you don't want to get naked? Really?

I'd hate to see what other things are "entirely the same" by your logic. fucking a person and fucking an orangutan? Having an abortion and kicking a child in front of a moving car? (Wait, I think you would agree with that one...maybe I do see a pattern here...)[/QUOTE]

Why is it different? They both are dress codes required for the work. If you don't want to comply with the dress code, don't work there. What makes it a different principle?
 
[quote name='HowStern']I've never heard of anyone being fired for wearing a necklace with a cross on it or for going into work with those stupid ashes on their head. Are ashes on the head part of the dress code? Would anyone dare say anything to somebody for having ashes on their head?

The bigotry in this thread is blatant. I bet the few of you siding with the corp. on this issue would more quickly defend the KKKs constitutional right to gather peacefully than you are defending this girls constitutional right to peacefully wear a headscarf. Are you guys third-world dictators? You sound like Ahmadinejad the way you are denouncing our freedom of religion.

Will you dare argue our freedom has gone too far and that we should have less?
I would have to bet that if you are it is only because it is not your religion being targeted.
If only there truly was a separation of church and state.[/QUOTE]

Who said she couldn't wear a headscarf? I didn't see anyone arguing that. That's a total strawman. Don't cry "bigotry" when you can't even understand what someone's argument is.
 
^The company said that if she wanted to work there she couldn't wear the scarf.
She's being denied the right to be a productive working member of society based on a religious belief. Don't try and pretend that she denied herself the job by not compromising her religious beliefs. That is the bigotry. You are belittling her religion by saying it's not important enough to be covered by the first amendment.

This is against what the entire country was founded on.

No biggie though...
 
[quote name='HowStern']^The company said that if she wanted to work there she couldn't wear the scarf.
She's being denied the right to be a productive working member of society based on a religious belief. Don't try and pretend that she denied herself the job by not compromising her religious beliefs. That is the bigotry. You are belittling her religion by saying it's not important enough to be covered by the first amendment.

This is against what the entire country was founded on.

No biggie though...[/QUOTE]

Well, if you read what I wrote, you didn't understand it at all.

But perhaps you can clear something up. I was under the impression that this store has a dress code so that its workers present a certain image to the public to advance their business, kind of like if you work at Wal-Mart you have to wear a blue vest or whatever they wear, or if you wait at a fancy restaurant you have to wear a tux or something. Am I mistaken?
 
It's a scarf on her head. She's not refusing to wear their shirt or name tag or some shit. Nobody's going to walk in and not know where they are because of her headscarf.

I'm so sorry she'll make their store look all Muslim-y.
 
There's a special place for religious practices and observations that the world seems to hold above criticism. Do we all remember the cartoon of Muhammad from Denmark?

If this circumstance had no religious tone, that is, this girl just likes to wear hijabs based purely on fashion reasons (this isn't such a rare thing), would it still be wrong to some of you if the chain demanded she remove it for work (and she still refused)?

All of that said, I don't see how wearing a hijab really affects the rest of the dresscode, though it isn't my business, so ehh. As was mentioned earlier, some of them are quite beautiful despite their symbolism of the submissive woman/inferior gender/blind faith/uncontrollable male lust.

I have a further question: If the girl was wearing a niqab, would some of you change your opinion? Why?

395px-Muslim_woman_in_Yemen.jpg
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, if you read what I wrote, you didn't understand it at all.

[/QUOTE]

I read what you wrote and understood plenty well what you were trying to do.

As for the above post.

If her religion requires she wear a niqab. And she chooses to practice this religion of her own free will. She should be allowed to wear it if it does not interfere with her performance.

fuck I've seen people working at wal-mart wearing weirder shit than that.
 
[quote name='HowStern']
If her religion requires she wear a niqab. And she chooses to practice this religion of her own free will. She should be allowed to wear it if it does not interfere with her performance.

fuck I've seen people working at wal-mart wearing weirder shit than that.[/QUOTE]

You skipped the question required for me to assess where you stand on this.

If a woman wears a hijab for nonreligious purposes and is still denied the job upon her refusal to remove it, is the clothing chain still in the wrong?
 
If it is for non-religious purposes she should not be allowed to wear it if it really is against the dress code. Though I don't personally see the problem with adding some personal flair to a uniform. Like a scarf. If it's against company policy then it is what is.

But being that it pertains to a religion that is no more important or silly than - but equal to - the christianity this country seems based on she is being discriminated against.

I mean Easter and Christmas are national holidays. Why not let her have her headscarf?

I believe since Christianity is the "standard" in this country, things like headscarves are scolded. Whereas things like ash crosses on foreheads are not even given a second glance.
 
[quote name='HowStern']If it is for non-religious purposes she should not be allowed to wear it if it really is against the dress code. Though I don't personally see the problem with adding some personal flair to a uniform. Like a scarf. If it's against company policy then it is what is.

But being that it pertains to a religion that is no more important or silly than - but equal to - the christianity this country seems based on she is being discriminated against.

I mean Easter and Christmas are national holidays. Why not let her have her headscarf?

I believe since Christianity is the "standard" in this country, things like headscarves are scolded. Whereas things like ash crosses on foreheads are not even given a second glance.[/QUOTE]

Now for what we've been working towards: Why do you give special precedence to the religious person?
 
[quote name='HowStern']I read what you wrote and understood plenty well what you were trying to do.[/QUOTE]

You know little to nothing about me, and I resent your wholly false accusation of "bigotry."

So, if a work dress code said no crucifixes, no yarmulkes or no ashes, that is bigoted as well? I'm trying to understand your position.

BTW, I think this dress code is stupid too, but I do think the store has a right to implement it, so long as they are not doing so in a way to specifically attack a certain religion. Obviously it's a bit of a gray area, but there are certain requirements for certain jobs.
 
[quote name='HowStern']You are belittling her religion by saying it's not important enough to be covered by the first amendment.[/QUOTE]

How is a private company exercising its right to assemble with individuals of its own choosing against the first amendment?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How is a private company exercising its right to assemble with individuals of its own choosing against the first amendment?[/QUOTE]

lol. That's cute. Discrimination by any other name..



@elprincipe, Sorry I'm above your little games..You were trying to play like the company didn't deny her the right to wear her hijab. That she had the choice of wearing it or not and she chose to wear it so she didn't get hired.
The keywords there being she didn't get hired. It's called an ultimatum. Which is not a real choice.

It's belitting her religion. To say one religion is so important that it's holidays are made national but another is not worthy of even having a scarf be dress code exempt.

I wonder. How do some of you feel about this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229897,00.html

She just flat out completely refused to work. (Though religious reasons are claimed...I doubt that's the true reason she wanted a day off.)
 
You're struggling to stay coherent with this article so it's probably best that you don't add more weight with that link. You still have to answer why you give special precedence to a religious person.

You do realize that Christmas is celebrated on a national level in the West and that other regions in the world celebrate other holidays, don't you? Should we represent every religious holiday equally, since this is America, after all?
 
rabbitt the reason she gets to wear the scarf is simple.It's a basic priniciple of her religion that she wear it. By not letting her wear it the company is infringing upon her freedom to practice that religion.

What do you mean I realize Xmas is celebrated on a national level? I am the one that said that. My point being that the people protesting against her wearing her scarf should be protesting against xmas, easter, and other religious holidays from being nationally/federally recognized as well.

Why does one religion have more freedom in the work place than another?
 
[quote name='HowStern']rabbitt the reason she gets to wear the scarf is simple.It's a basic priniciple of her religion that she wear it. By not letting her wear it the company is infringing upon her freedom to practice that religion.

What do you mean I realize Xmas is celebrated on a national level? I am the one that said that. My point being that the people protesting against her wearing her scarf should be protesting against xmas, easter, and other religious holidays from being nationally/federally recognized as well.

Why does one religion have more freedom in the work place than another?[/QUOTE]

I asked why you give more value to a person of faith. If it were a basic principle of her religion that she wore no clothing at all, by your standard it would be appalling for the clothing chain to deny her a job. Is this alright with you?

It seems you only read half of what I said. Christmas is celebrated in the United States because most of the people that live here are Christians. This is pretty much how most other countries work. You get Eid ul-Fitr and Eid al-Adha in the Middle East.
 
[quote name='HowStern']@elprincipe, Sorry I'm above your little games..You were trying to play like the company didn't deny her the right to wear her hijab. That she had the choice of wearing it or not and she chose to wear it so she didn't get hired.
The keywords there being she didn't get hired. It's called an ultimatum. Which is not a real choice.[/quote]

No games, I'm just trying to understand how you got to such an incoherent position. I still don't understand why you insist the company "denied her right" to wear a hijab. The company cannot and did not do that. She is free to wear a hijab anytime she wants. You know this well.

I guess from what you wrote after that you feel it is the company's responsibility to elevate someone's religious sensibilities above its business interests. I guess you are okay, then, with forcing a pharmacy to hire someone who won't distribute birth-control pills due to their Catholic faith?

[quote name='HowStern']I wonder. How do some of you feel about this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229897,00.html

She just flat out completely refused to work. (Though religious reasons are claimed...I doubt that's the true reason she wanted a day off.)[/QUOTE]

Interesting case, although I don't understand why you doubt she wanted Sunday off for religious reasons. You don't even know the person yet you doubt that she is honest about her religious preference; that is strange to me.

Anyhow, it's somewhat a different case because she had already been working there 12 years, so she didn't go into the job knowing that it entailed working Sundays. OTOH, if the job requires working Sundays and you don't want to work Sundays, that is not the right job for you. You'd think they could just work something like that out by hiring someone one day a week or something, but when push comes to shove I think the case was wrongly decided if the facts in the article are correct.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']I asked why you give more value to a person of faith. If it were a basic principle of her religion that she wore no clothing at all, by your standard it would be appalling for the clothing chain to deny her a job. Is this alright with you?

It seems you only read half of what I said. Christmas is celebrated in the United States because most of the people that live here are Christians. This is pretty much how most other countries work. You get Eid ul-Fitr and Eid al-Adha in the Middle East.[/QUOTE]

Being naked would be against the law. It would not be up to the employer at this point but up to the law. That's a ludicrous analogy. Just like religious discrimination is against the law as stated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

Religious Accommodation

An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

If these laws make you unhappy perhaps you would prefer to live somewhere like N. Korea, China, or maybe Iran?

elprinicpe, not dispensing birth control pills is failing to do the job. Wearing a scarf does NOT impose upon her ability to perform at maximum effort. And as outlined above is protectd by her Civil Rights. Wearing a scarf does not impose an undue hardship. Therefore abercrombie is required to accommodate.

These laws apply to both applicants and employees.

I'm not defending her or her religion. I'm defending the constitution.
 
[quote name='HowStern']elprinicpe, not dispensing birth control pills is failing to do the job. Wearing a scarf does NOT impose upon her ability to perform at maximum effort. And as outlined above is protectd by her Civil Rights. Wearing a scarf does not impose an undue hardship. Therefore abercrombie is required to accommodate.

These laws apply to both applicants and employees.

I'm not defending her or her religion. I'm defending the constitution.[/QUOTE]

The Civil Rights Act is not the Constitution.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You feel that it makes no difference in terms of her being able to do the job, while I feel that it may well make a big difference in terms of the company's business requirements for its image and customer relations, to name just a couple of relevant areas. I don't think she has any right to force the company to change its business practices to allow her to satisfy her religious need to wear a certain garment when those things conflict. Again, I think they are dumb in taking that position, but I do think they have a right to.
 
I have a huge fucking problem with anyone willing to accommodate for or make special amends to please a religious person. Above all else, you're elevating them to a place where they can bypass rules if they claim to believe in some religion. (As an aside, what does that tell me my worth as an atheist is if I cannot adorn the same hijab for fashion reasons? How would you explain yourself if you hired a hijab-wearing Muslim woman but denied a non-religious woman with the same garb?)

A hijab can be worn in conjunction with the rest of the clothing chain's attire, which I figure is probably tight blue jeans and a tank-top or simple t-shirt, for women. Taking it back to the niqab, you cannot put the required clothing over top it.
 
Ah, elprinceipe, you're right it was the civil rights act of 1866 that was written into the 14th amendment not 1964.

I haven't seen enough court rulings to say how the CRA of 1964 is protected federally. However, seeing the case above where the woman got her sundays off, I'd say this girl has a 99% chance of "getting her scarf and wearing it too." :p
 
[quote name='HowStern']Ah, elprinceipe, you're right it was the civil rights act of 1866 that was written into the 14th amendment not 1964.

I haven't seen enough court rulings to say how the CRA of 1964 is protected federally. However, seeing the case above where the woman got her sundays off, I'd say this girl has a 99% chance of "getting her scarf and wearing it too." :p[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you mean about "protected federally." It certainly is the law, but a simple law passed by Congress, obviously, is not the same as being part of the Constitution.

Based on the case that you linked to, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this woman won her case, even if I would disagree with that outcome.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't know what you mean about "protected federally." It certainly is the law, but a simple law passed by Congress, obviously, is not the same as being part of the Constitution.

Based on the case that you linked to, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this woman won her case, even if I would disagree with that outcome.[/QUOTE]

By "protected federally" I was saying that I think the 10th amendment could come into play on such issues.
 
Abercrombie is going to lose this one. UPS lost when a Rastafarian sued them for not allowing him to grow his hair out the way he wanted to despite having that policy in place for all their employees, regardless of religion.


Food for thought:

If diversity makes a better workforce, then it's in an employer's best interest to hire a diverse range of employees. In a free market, only the employers who hire a diverse range of employees would come out on top; those who choose to discriminate against diversity would lose out.

Then it shouldn't be necessary for the government to step in with these equal employment laws. I mean, that's assuming that diversity creates a better workforce. Anyone wanna argue that it doesn't? Stern, mayhaps?

More food for thought:

Being obese, having HIV, and having allergies are all protected things under equal employment laws. Stuff like those are considered disabilities. Fabulous, eh?
 
There are three things I'd like to say in regards to my view point on this case.
A.) I fully expect this woman to win her case.
B.) I don't think she should.
C.) A&F sucks for having such a policy and if I shopped there before, I wouldn't now.
 
There are three things I'd like to say in regards to my view point on this case.
A.) I fully expect this woman to win her case.
B.) I don't think she should.
C.) A&F sucks for having such a policy and if I shopped there before, I wouldn't now.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']There are three things I'd like to say in regards to my view point on this case.
A.) I fully expect this woman to win her case.
B.) I don't think she should.
C.) A&F sucks for having such a policy and if I shopped there before, I wouldn't now.[/QUOTE]

Good sum-up of my thinking for the most part as well.
 
[quote name='HowStern']rabbitt the reason she gets to wear the scarf is simple.It's a basic priniciple of her religion that she wear it. By not letting her wear it the company is infringing upon her freedom to practice that religion.

What do you mean I realize Xmas is celebrated on a national level? I am the one that said that. My point being that the people protesting against her wearing her scarf should be protesting against xmas, easter, and other religious holidays from being nationally/federally recognized as well.

Why does one religion have more freedom in the work place than another?[/QUOTE]

Because someone OWNES the workplace and their rights take precedence over those that enter it.

I love the backward logic of your misguided believe in "freedom." Let me explain why it's wrong in principle: I have a right to fart in my own home. Hell, I probably have the freedom to fat in a public park. Where my right fails is when I enter your home. If you don't like the smell of my farts, you can force me to leave. How's that for discrimination? Fine and dandy, I say.


The store has an owner, or owners. Their place of business is their home. The burqua, or headscarf is a fart. No matter how many times god mandates you to fart on a daily basis, you don't get the right to fart in my house, get it ? Probably not.

My freedom to be in non-contact with your farts in my own home takes precedence over your right to fart. Period. This is what you can't seem to integrate into your concept of "freedom." Your forcing me to tolerate your flatulence in my private property in the name of non-discrimination makes your philosophy identical to those in N. Korea and China. You seem to support the idea of absolute freedom for one of your own chosen few for the slavery of another which is exactly what you're complaining about in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top