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.
im still confused, if she was never hired then how did she even find out about the policy, and how does she know she wasnt hired because of it ?
When she was 17 at the time, she went in for an interview for a sales associate position. The manager gave her solid marks on three competencies. The manager told her that they would call her about orientation.
She never got a call, a friend who worked there told her the higher ups said that her headscarf violated the chain stores' look policy.
True. This is just about the civil rights law. The constitution is not in play here.
Supremacy Clause, 14th Amendment
Quote:
The Supreme Court now says that employers can't enforce dress codes if they violate a religious practice.
That is NOT what the Supreme Court said!!! This was an employment discrimination case.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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.
The Facts Of The Case:
Using Abercrombie’s ordinary
system for evaluating applicants, Cooke gave Elauf a
rating that qualified her to be hired; Cooke was concerned,
however, that Elauf ’s headscarf would conflict with the
store’s Look Policy.
Cooke sought the store manager’s guidance to clarify
whether the headscarf was a forbidden “cap.” When this
yielded no answer, Cooke turned to Randall Johnson, the
district manager. Cooke informed Johnson that she believed
Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith.
Johnson told Cooke that Elauf ’s headscarf would violate
the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or
otherwise, and directed Cooke not to hire Elauf.
Ms. Elauf was never given the opportunity to say whether she would or would not need special accommodation or whether or not she would comply with the dress code, she was not hired because it was the Mr. Cooke's assumed that because she was a Muslim that her dress would violate the dress code.
That is employment discrimination pure and simple.
The case turned on whether or not Ms. Elauf had an affirmative duty to ask for a special accommodation. Abercrombie never claimed that it would be an undo business hardship to accommodate her wearing a head scarf in their ill defined dress code that banned the wearing of "hats."
I said what I thought of that when I mentioned the Mennonite and Hooters. IMO a business should have a right to hire who they choose. They have a right to impose a dress code, especially if it's important to the image they are trying to maintain.
The NY Yankee's should be able to demand you wear a Yankee's hat while playing for the Yankee's. Hooters should be able to require shorts and if you have someone so offended by a cross they could ask that they not be worn.
Personally I would have fired whoever decided to not hire this lady if she was well qualified before asking her if she was willing to adhere to our dress code, if that is what happened.
At Hooters and other breastaurants like Tilted Kilt and Twin Peaks, only servers and hosts really need to wear short shorts/skirts and a low cut top (even bikinis), everyone else could be wearing more. You may have a female cook who actually dresses like a cook with full pants. A woman could work in the back of the house roles not wearing scantly clad clothing.
That is NOT what the Supreme Court said!!! This was an employment discrimination case.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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.
The Facts Of The Case:
Using Abercrombie’s ordinary
system for evaluating applicants, Cooke gave Elauf a
rating that qualified her to be hired; Cooke was concerned,
however, that Elauf ’s headscarf would conflict with the
store’s Look Policy.
Cooke sought the store manager’s guidance to clarify
whether the headscarf was a forbidden “cap.” When this
yielded no answer, Cooke turned to Randall Johnson, the
district manager. Cooke informed Johnson that she believed
Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith.
Johnson told Cooke that Elauf ’s headscarf would violate
the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or
otherwise, and directed Cooke not to hire Elauf.
Ms. Elauf was never given the opportunity to say whether she would or would not need special accommodation or whether or not she would comply with the dress code, she was not hired because it was the Mr. Cooke's assumed that because she was a Muslim that her dress would violate the dress code.
That is employment discrimination pure and simple.
The case turned on whether or not Ms. Elauf had an affirmative duty to ask for a special accommodation. Abercrombie never claimed that it would be an undo business hardship to accommodate her wearing a head scarf in their ill defined dress code that banned the wearing of "hats."
The USG is the last one to accommodate.
The USG lives by a different set of rules.
That is not true, the Federal Government complies to the same rules.
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.
