Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She should have just worn one of those sexy Abercrombie bags over her head with two holes cut out for the eyeballs instead. That way her head is still covered and she's advertising for the company and honoring Mohammad at the same time.
That's what I am wondering. Of course I don't know the whole story, but I'm not sure why she couldn't have adhered to the dress code and still worn her hijab. It's especially ridiculous b/c she was in the stock room, so it's not even an issue of customer comfort.
Also that they hired her knowing that she covered, and then fired her for covering. It will be interesting to see how this suit comes out; A&F may simply settle, but have to amend their policies to reasonable accommodation of religious dress/symbols.
FYI, Muslim women are not the only ones who cover as a part of their religious beliefs. There are Christian denominations who cover, too.
Also that they hired her knowing that she covered, and then fired her for covering. It will be interesting to see how this suit comes out; A&F may simply settle, but have to amend their policies to reasonable accommodation of religious dress/symbols.
FYI, Muslim women are not the only ones who cover as a part of their religious beliefs. There are Christian denominations who cover, too.
Yeah, but those Christians are likely to be associated with A&F.
This woman should be glad she's not in The Netherlands where the government has just given up on multiculturism. So, it's join the crowd or go hide in a hole somewhere.
First off all the silly Slippery Slope arguments aside.... the first thing I would point out is this is not even the first time they have been sued for some form of discrimination.
They settled a 40m USD class action out of court back in 2004 involving discriminatory hiring practices... they never admitted fault but they did shell out the cash to settle out of court and implement new hiring practices after the case.
This is a company that has often been brought to court because of their focus on their image and how it may have impacted their business practice.
That said, she was hired and told at the time it would be allowed for her to wear this religous garment as long as it was in company colors.... after the fact they then demanded she remove it, suspended and then fired her. Now given that the Bill of Rights and its Amendments do in fact protect religious expression she may very well have a case since it is an instance of demanding removal of religious attire.
That's what I am wondering. Of course I don't know the whole story, but I'm not sure why she couldn't have adhered to the dress code and still worn her hijab. It's especially ridiculous b/c she was in the stock room, so it's not even an issue of customer comfort.
Or even image. Maybe they have a young white athletic look, but no one is going to see her in the stockroom anyway.
America should say "thanks" to liberals and political correctness who together hardly working on transformation of the US to a Muslim country.Such law suits are only the beginning.
Hey, it only took 10 posts for bitter partisanship to gain a foothold in this story!
Also that they hired her knowing that she covered, and then fired her for covering. It will be interesting to see how this suit comes out; A&F may simply settle, but have to amend their policies to reasonable accommodation of religious dress/symbols.
FYI, Muslim women are not the only ones who cover as a part of their religious beliefs. There are Christian denominations who cover, too.
That especially doesn't make sense to me. Was there a change in managers or something? Why would they be okay with it for awhile and then suddenly not be okay with it? If you're going to be discriminatory, at least be consistent.
First off all the silly Slippery Slope arguments aside.... the first thing I would point out is this is not even the first time they have been sued for some form of discrimination.
They settled a 40m USD class action out of court back in 2004 involving discriminatory hiring practices... they never admitted fault but they did shell out the cash to settle out of court and implement new hiring practices after the case.
This is a company that has often been brought to court because of their focus on their image and how it may have impacted their business practice.
That said, she was hired and told at the time it would be allowed for her to wear this religous garment as long as it was in company colors.... after the fact they then demanded she remove it, suspended and then fired her. Now given that the Bill of Rights and its Amendments do in fact protect religious expression she may very well have a case since it is an instance of demanding removal of religious attire.
I understood the constitutional amendments forbade the govt from limiting or promoting religious expression, not private institutions. Now under EEOC rules discrimination isn't allowed...but at what point do we draw the line? Companies should retain control of what image they wish to portray through appearance requirements. And I understood that the hijab is not a requirement of the Koran anyway. It's cultural.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
