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.
A Muslim women wearing a hijab (Islamic headscarf) was denied a job because according to the private company policy they have a dress code and she did not want to follow. The women filed a charge and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 - 1 against Abercrombie & Fitch retail clothing store company policy due to "discriminating against religious belief."
Political correctness is destroying our society.. Crosses and other non-Islamic symbols and clothing are banned in several Islamic nations, yet people in the west has to accommodate to the Muslims!
You can't condemn those countries for doing it then get mad at this one for saying we shouldn't. That's absolutely ridiculous.
A Muslim women wearing a hijab (Islamic headscarf) was denied a job because according to the private company policy they have a dress code and she did not want to follow. The women filed a charge and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 - 1 against Abercrombie & Fitch retail clothing store company policy due to "discriminating against religious belief."
Political correctness is destroying our society.. Crosses and other non-Islamic symbols and clothing are banned in several Islamic nations, yet people in the west has to accommodate to the Muslims!
My God! Well this should unify the base into action. The court has gone too far. Hijabs are legal. Bring guns.
The clothing chain declined to hire Samantha Elauf in 2008 as a sales associate because her hijab violated the company’s “look policy,” which at the time prohibited employees from wearing head coverings. Elauf was never informed of the “look policy.” Elauf filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The red is key. she was never informed of the look policy. If she was informed of the look policy, she could have made different choices, for example, removing the hijab during work hours. The company (some random HR person, most likely) shouldn't have assumed that she would wear that Hijab on daily basis, during working hours. So I can see why she won the case.
However,
Abercrombie has since changed its “look policy” to allow for headgear, including hijabs, which are a type of headscarf
AF's decision is basically saying someone's personal belief will be given higher priority and important over private company rules.
Doesn't really bother me.
According to this interesting article
If your company tells you that you can’t wear piercings or reveal your tattoos at work, they aren’t doing anything illegal. Don’t look to the legal system to protect workers who have body art. The law covers discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, nationality, origin and gender. The one exception may be if you’re a Hindu with a nose ring, which could be a religious observation.
Basically, an atheist punk teen with a nose ring cannot sue the retail shop for discrimination, but a religious person with a nose ring can sue and win the case.
It doesn't bother me either way, but I don't think this decision really helps the religious minority community.
My family has several retail shops in the mall. I have MANY MANY MANY friends who are managers in retail chain stores and unfortunately, I know every little trick in the book they use to not hire somebody for whatever the reasons and still be able to get away with it.
In my most humble opinion, follow rules will get you hired most easily.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 06-01-2015 at 10:47 PM..
See, I have a real problem with "undue hardship". There is no way to qualify what that is.
Now if she had went in wearing her religious headwear and someone decided to simply not hire her because of their policy without informing her of that policy and asking if she could accept it, I'd grant her a case to sue.
How does a business determine when their dress code becomes a "undue hardship"? How can we create law that is so vague? Is it really a hardship on Hooters if someone wants to wear a something that fully covers them? Will people refuse to allow this person to serve them?
I agree that one shouldn't be passed over because of someone's perceived problem with one's religion especially when they do not get a chance to address that perception but I also believe a business should be able to enforce it's standard on those they hire.
In today's society I can understand why someone would simply not want to risk saying "I would hire you as long as you are willing to give up your religious garb while at work" but it shouldn't be that way. One can't wear whatever they want where I work as it would be dangerous but is it really the place of the government to tell a business that they can't present a certain image to the public?
The NY Yankee's can't require a set uniform?
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.
[/IMG]