Teen alleges that head scarf led to job

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2006
Teen alleges that head scarf led to job
9
Fri, 09-18-2009 - 1:22pm

"Teen alleges that head scarf led to job discrimination"

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/09/18/20090918abercrombie-lawsuit18-ON.html

Photobucket
My Two Monsters!

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephan Colbert

O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.
Lead me from the darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishads (1.3.28)
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-18-2006
Fri, 09-18-2009 - 2:35pm

I think I'd need to find out where the law lands on the type of company Abercrombie is.


Theatres, for example, are completely allowed to say things like "This role requires nudity or cursing or taking God's name in vain, if you are uncomfortable with this or have religious restrictions, you will not be considered for this role."


Companies which require uniforms are permitted to turn people away for being unable to conform to the required look - long hair, tattoos, piercings, etc.


I know Abercrombie & Fitch has requirements for its salespeople who border on doubling as clothing models in their stores, but I don't know how much sway they have in "casting" their "models."


THAT SAID...




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"'Cause love's such an old-fashioned word, and love dares you to care for the people on th
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2006
Sat, 09-19-2009 - 1:29am

I am not sure if an apparel store employee look is protected. From what I understand, employers must make reasonable accommodations. I would imagine that an employee wearing a hijab could required to wear one that is coordinating with the "look" and that could easily be accomplished. It's not like she showed up in a full get up like a niqab or wore a shalwar kameez.

It's not like me, an endowed LDS female, going to apply at Hooters and suing that a modest (short sleeve, not as tight fitting, and knee length shorts) be provided.

One the comments on the website many happen to think that no because should be required to make any accommodations to a uniform, and that that trumps religious freedom.

And to be honest, if they hired a diverse staff, they might see more business than they already get.

Photobucket
My Two Monsters!

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephan Colbert

O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.
Lead me from the darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishads (1.3.28)
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2001
Sun, 09-20-2009 - 12:37pm
Well, I dunno about this. We go 'round and 'round about "religious" clothing, even jewelry. Schools have the right to set dress policy. Public or private. Do employers? I guess like Snow wrote, it depends on the laws and where a retail clothing store falls under that right to require a dress code to sell their clothes. Shrug. I don't know. I'm not ready to jump on the band wagon of it's a denial of religious rights but I hesitate to say an employer should have that kind of authority of its employees. (shaking my head)



I also remember a news article about a Muslim woman who applied at a hair salon, who wanted to wear her scarf, and was not hired and I think, tried to sue, also. I'm not sure of the legal outcome on the incident. The salon's position as I recall, was that the hair stylists had to exemplify the "product" and with this woman, her hair would not be visible. Yet she was qualified as a hair stylist and could work on other people's hair. Just didn't want to display her own, for religious reasons.



I guess this is going to get to be quite a thorny problem, as we have read of issues in France as well, where the gov't has taken the position not to allow the full religious garb in schools. And all the conflict and controversy surrounding that. So where does it stop? The accommodation? Where's the line and who decides if the accommodation is too much or at cross purposes to the employer's selling potential of their product?



I also remember a news story about a non-Muslim employee working for a Muslim-owned company, being restricted from certain foods to be brought from home into the employee lunchroom (there was only one lunchroom, apparently) because the foods were forbidden to be eaten, or to even be around, apparently, by Muslim employees. Did this deny her religious freedom to eat what her religion allowed her to eat? Or not? It was a "public company" not a religious business. Does that matter? Or not? The woman refused, brought "objectionable" food from home, and was fired for doing so. Again, I don't remember the outcome of this woman's lawsuit. Was her right to eat as she wishes any different from the woman wearing her head scarf, in the OP, or in the hair salon?



As the number of Muslim believers rises and becomes more "mainstream" and no longer a small minority not very visible, these conflicts are going to increase, I think. Because it's so different than the "mainstream" most people are used to, employers included. There was the incident of a Muslim cabby contracting with an airport refusing to take travelers with dogs or alcohol, too. And then there are the pharmacists refusing to carry, dispense, even confiscating written doctors' prescriptions from women coming in for the morning after pill or birth control pills, etc., citing their religious beliefs as a reason to deny customer service. Employers refusing to provide full health care policies for all employees as regards coverage for birth control options, as well as abortion or even vasectomies or tying tubes. So where does it all end?



Is it just fear of change and rising diversity? I just am really confused, to be quite honest. We fight battles to keep religion from taking over our public schools with creationism taught as fact in a SCIENCE class curriculum. Or Bible study. And no other religions' creation myths taught or acknowledged. Holding up an entire classroom's studies while students are allowed to leave during the school day to go to Bible/religious study somewhere else. Allowing one kind of religion symbol but not another to be worn as jewelry. Banning T-shirts with objectionable or controversial content. Banning too revealing clothing. Just a lot of things come up, and given the history of just what religious content usually gets pushed in our schools, even in our workplaces with employee required prayer at staff meetings and so on, I can see the conflict with something like wearing a head scarf as a religious symbol. Or coaches and members of the school district, taking unsuspecting team members on a field trip to be baptized without parental permission?



I just don't know. How far does "religious freedom" need to go in mainstream life where we all meet and interact? How do we balance so that no one's religious freedom is jeopardized in any job, school, pharmacy, medical coverage? Is that ideal even possible?


Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(





Photobucket



"What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night.

It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime.

It is the little shadow which runs across the grass

and loses itself in the sunset.



- Crowfoot, Blackfoot warrior and orator



Photobucket Photobucket



Dog fighting is cruelty, which is a human activity and a human illness.

It's not the dog's fault.

All dogs need to be evaluated as individuals."

--Tim Racer, one of BAD RAP's founders



http://www.badrap.org/rescue/



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Photobucket



Mika Dog




"All things share the same breath;

the beast, the tree, the man.

The Air shares its spirit with

all the life it supports."

--Chief Seattle



"If there are no dogs in Heaven,

then when I die I want to go where they went."

~Will Rogers



"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress

can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

~~Mahatma Gandhi





Photobucket



"Life is a state of mind." ~~from Being There.



Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2009
Mon, 09-28-2009 - 6:37am

*snort*

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 09-29-2009 - 11:30am

I think I'd be on the side of the employer with this one, as long as all employees potential and actual were subject to the same rules. Employers have the right and the responsibility to set the goals, duties, and image of the company and each role within it. That's why the pharmacists Gypsy mentioned who refuse to fill certain prescriptions should be fired, as should the cabbies who refuse fares based on their religious beliefs, as should the government employees here who were trying to assert their "right" not to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals.

It has perhaps escaped notice in our increasingly litigious society, but discrimination only exists where one person or group of people is treated differently than others, not where somebody doesn't want to have to follow the same rules as everybody else.

DD

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2001
Tue, 09-29-2009 - 8:33pm

***" It has perhaps escaped notice in our increasingly litigious society, but discrimination only exists where one person or group of people is treated differently than others, not where somebody doesn't want to have to follow the same rules as everybody else."***

I think you just hit the proverbial nail on its head! This is exactly it! Not wanting to follow the same rules like everyone else. they want *others* to be discriminated against, on *their* behalf, because they consider themselves "more special" than everyone else. (Eye roll) In some ways, I actually hope the U.S. Supreme Court gets to put the kabosh on this skewed attitude and wrongful application/definition of so-called "discrimination."



Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(





Photobucket



"What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night.

It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime.

It is the little shadow which runs across the grass

and loses itself in the sunset.



- Crowfoot, Blackfoot warrior and orator



Photobucket Photobucket



Dog fighting is cruelty, which is a human activity and a human illness.

It's not the dog's fault.

All dogs need to be evaluated as individuals."

--Tim Racer, one of BAD RAP's founders



http://www.badrap.org/rescue/



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Photobucket



Mika Dog




"All things share the same breath;

the beast, the tree, the man.

The Air shares its spirit with

all the life it supports."

--Chief Seattle



"If there are no dogs in Heaven,

then when I die I want to go where they went."

~Will Rogers



"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress

can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

~~Mahatma Gandhi





Photobucket



"Life is a state of mind." ~~from Being There.



Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2009
Wed, 09-30-2009 - 9:20am


Well said.


Avatar for kxsiven
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Sat, 10-03-2009 - 2:53pm

I really can't find any compassion to this case. At least she can sue.


In most states in USA I could be legally kicked out from my work just because I am gay, and no chance for sueing.


kxsiven
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2008
Sun, 10-04-2009 - 7:53pm
I'm just curious WHY anyone whos religion requires them to cover up would WANT to work somewhere with pictures hanging up that come dangerously close to soft core porn. ....I mean unless her whole aim was to apply KNOWING she would be asked to conform to thier standards and

Powered by CGISpy.com