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.
According to the Civil Rights Act she was treated differently because of her religion, there was also a prior lawsuit against Abercrombie regarding a stock room employee.
What kind of nonsense are you on about? Their dress code says hats and scarves are not to be worn
by employees while on the job. She is being treated just like any other employee. Everyone has to obey the dress code if they want to work there. You don't like the dress code then don't work there find another place that allows you dress the way you want or start your own company. Every company has their own rules that everyone has to follow. Workers can't just do whatever they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
The Supreme court ruled against him because being in the military restricts your rights. Ambercrombie is not a military group......unless the conspiracy theorists are right....
Since when does a private business have to make accomodation for someone's religion?
I'm sure some companies do but that is their own choice they should not be forced to do so,
particularly when it could or would be a disruption to their business.
Practice religion on your own time, not company time. That's what a church or mosque is for.
The ruling is absurd.
Ah, slavery was outlawed a while back but maybe you didn't get the memo... sooo... employees are not property but are actual people, people who have certain guaranteed rights one of which is to not be discriminated against due to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion and in many cases physical or mental disability. As are result, this was a case based upon
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship."
I wonder what the opinion would be if it was a Christian being told they couldn't wear a cross necklace, or a Jew not being allowed to wear a head cover. It's that these items aren't about looks, dress or style. They are religious items and it's illegal to discriminate based on that.
Practice religion on your own time, not company time. That's what a church or mosque is for.
The ruling is absurd.
Of course your suggestion will be ideal, but this is just not the reality.
What is really absurd is that there is no real equal employment opportunity when you really think about it
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.
So if you wear a nose ring for fashion statement, you cannot sue the company for not hiring you. But if you are a religious person who wears the nose ring for religious purpose, the employer must accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.
I wonder what the opinion would be if it was a Christian being told they couldn't wear a cross necklace, or a Jew not being allowed to wear a head cover. It's that these items aren't about looks, dress or style. They are religious items and it's illegal to discriminate based on that.
Kept conservative and not a billboard, should cause no problems.
Now comes the tattooed person.
Punks' rights.
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.