As usual, the IJ article is skimpy. This is from SCOTUSblog.com:
“In 2008, Oklahoma teenager Samantha Elauf applied for a job as a salesperson at retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch. Elauf is a devout Muslim who believes that her religion requires her to wear a headscarf. But the company has a dress code that prohibits its employees from wearing – among other things – “caps.” When Abercrombie didn’t hire Elauf, and a company employee indicated that the rejection was attributable to the headscarf, she went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf.”
Even if she were to wear a hijab, aren’t all Abercrombie employees required to wear belly shirts and genital-hugger jeans anyway? Pretty sure that’s against her religious beliefs too, and she would have probably filed suit if she had been hired anyway.
Not saying any sort of “look policy” against a visible, religious wearable is right at all (it’s not), the retailer was just damned if they did, damned if they didn’t, and rightfully so based on that corporate policy.
They could have just told her they were taking a lot of applications for the position and they would get back with her. That may have prevented the problem.
Telling her it was about the scarf was the problem. Not that I’m surprised, since retail clothing stores probably don’t train their managers not to share such details.
Question: if they have a specific uniform, I would imagine it would have to be not just a certain look, but actual A&F clothes (meaning, I couldn’t roll in wearing my JCP mom jeans to work tonight). If A&F doesn’t make a head scarf to be sold in their stores, aren’t they just following their BFOQ?
I agree that they were dumb to say they didn’t hire her specifically for that reason and the verdict is just, but just thought I would throw that out there for conversation sake.
Actually, in a factory, wouldn’t it be somewhat helpful? In most factories (I guess I’m thinking food production), don’t the employees have to cover their head/hair anyways? (For a good laugh, please watch a very old movie called Club Paradise and what they do with the chef’s dreadlocks.)
At the end of the day, I will say I don’t understand why this is even an issue. Cover your head, don’t cover your head, and for whatever reason, that’s your business. I thought that’s what America was all about.
If Abercrombie hadn’t hired a Catholic girl because she insisted on wearing her rosary, or a Jewish guy because he wanted to wear his yarmulke, I doubt this would be as controversial.
It’s funny that many of the people criticizing this decision are the same people who cheered when Hobby Lobby won its Supreme Court case case to deny certain medical benefits to their employees due to their deeply held religious beliefs. A little consistency would be nice.
Hobby Lobby employees weren’t objecting to what their employer did, just liberal pukes like you. They also like their Sunday’s off work and they like the benefits they are provided.
Dude, that was totally unnecessary. There was no need for that insult out of the blue. You could’ve left our the “liberal puke” line and made the same point. Relax.
David – Uh…I only see one post that disagreed with the SCOTUS decision. There are several that provide examples of how A&F could have avoided the whole mess. Additionally, I agreed with the decision.
Yeah, I’m surprised there weren’t as many dissenters here, given the large hard right faction here. You should have seen the reactions of the right wing blogosphere and the right-wingers on my Facebook feed after the decision came out though. Every so-called religious freedom advocate that supported the Hobby Lobby decision decried this one, saying things like “the Muslims are taking over” and “1 more step towards Sharia.”
I think it is because the people on here are more Constitutionists. We believe in what it stands for, even if it flys in the face of our personal preferences.
Unfortunately, many liberals and conservatives don’t get that. The Constitution is what makes the field level for everyone.
As I said back in Feb, I’m still conflicted on this.
On the one hand, requiring someone to remove their religious items, whether its a hijab, cross or yarmulke, as a condition of employment, does seem like religious discrimination. But on the other hand, requiring a company to alter a dress code that’s part of their nationally-recognized brand, to accommodate a potential employee, seems like a swing in the other direction.
Although I do feel for her – no one should have to choose between a job and staying true to their faith – I’m leaning more towards A&F. If something like this happened at a store like Macy’s or Target, where I’m sure they have a dress code, but not one that’s specifically designed to represent their brand, I’d agree with her. But with a company like A&F, that is well-known for having such strict imaging guidelines, that they even dictate what hairstyles employees can wear (see link below,) I’m less sympathetic.
Knowing what a company’s dress code is before even applying, but still applying even though you know you won’t be able to comply with it, seems like you’re looking more for a problem, than a job. It kind of reminds me of the men who sued Hooters for discrimination because the company wouldn’t hire them as Hooters Girls.
Yes, BS, there are certain people that engage in a situation to just pick a fight, even though they have no intention or real personal impact to themself.
In my opinion, this is no different than a school football team that has a team prayer prior to the game. If someone does not want to participate, it is their right to not participate. However, it does not give them the right to force others to not have the prayer.
Okay, to apply your analogy, how do you feel if one of those football players was not allowed to play in the game because he didn’t participate in the prayer?
I would agree with you regarding the team prayer, but only if the prayer was not something mandated by the school. ie. I’d be fine with the team’s quarterback or running back asking the team to join him in a prayer, but not the coach or school administrator telling the team to huddle up for a pre-game prayer. Of course, this is only for public schools. If it’s a private, religious school, the administration should be free to require as many pre-game prayers as they want.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Sorry, Fred, you can’t have it both ways.
If it was clear that A&F did not hire her for that reason, they got the decision right.
I agree with Agent’s post below that their decision to not hire should have been based on other acceptable reasons.
This article don’t state that she was not hired because of the heads scarf. It give no reason why she was not hired, just that the EEOC believes it.
Could be there was someone more qualified or someone willing to work for less.
As usual, the IJ article is skimpy. This is from SCOTUSblog.com:
“In 2008, Oklahoma teenager Samantha Elauf applied for a job as a salesperson at retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch. Elauf is a devout Muslim who believes that her religion requires her to wear a headscarf. But the company has a dress code that prohibits its employees from wearing – among other things – “caps.” When Abercrombie didn’t hire Elauf, and a company employee indicated that the rejection was attributable to the headscarf, she went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf.”
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Even if she were to wear a hijab, aren’t all Abercrombie employees required to wear belly shirts and genital-hugger jeans anyway? Pretty sure that’s against her religious beliefs too, and she would have probably filed suit if she had been hired anyway.
Not saying any sort of “look policy” against a visible, religious wearable is right at all (it’s not), the retailer was just damned if they did, damned if they didn’t, and rightfully so based on that corporate policy.
They could have just told her they were taking a lot of applications for the position and they would get back with her. That may have prevented the problem.
Telling her it was about the scarf was the problem. Not that I’m surprised, since retail clothing stores probably don’t train their managers not to share such details.
Or, just don’t discriminate. That may have prevented the problem.
Question: if they have a specific uniform, I would imagine it would have to be not just a certain look, but actual A&F clothes (meaning, I couldn’t roll in wearing my JCP mom jeans to work tonight). If A&F doesn’t make a head scarf to be sold in their stores, aren’t they just following their BFOQ?
I agree that they were dumb to say they didn’t hire her specifically for that reason and the verdict is just, but just thought I would throw that out there for conversation sake.
Great question, Nebraskan. There are several companies that have uniforms, UPS, to name one.
Another issue could be for safety reasons. Can you imagine a person wearing a hijab in a factory?
Actually, in a factory, wouldn’t it be somewhat helpful? In most factories (I guess I’m thinking food production), don’t the employees have to cover their head/hair anyways? (For a good laugh, please watch a very old movie called Club Paradise and what they do with the chef’s dreadlocks.)
At the end of the day, I will say I don’t understand why this is even an issue. Cover your head, don’t cover your head, and for whatever reason, that’s your business. I thought that’s what America was all about.
If Abercrombie hadn’t hired a Catholic girl because she insisted on wearing her rosary, or a Jewish guy because he wanted to wear his yarmulke, I doubt this would be as controversial.
It’s funny that many of the people criticizing this decision are the same people who cheered when Hobby Lobby won its Supreme Court case case to deny certain medical benefits to their employees due to their deeply held religious beliefs. A little consistency would be nice.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hostile much? I really wish we could ban you (and Bob) from this site.
The name calling and aggresive commenting always starts with you and should not be allowed.
You do your handle a diservice. Agent…you are not.
I’ve engaged with you before. You’re not worth my time. No one cares what a nasty, bitter old man thinks.
Dude, that was totally unnecessary. There was no need for that insult out of the blue. You could’ve left our the “liberal puke” line and made the same point. Relax.
Nebraska, David and Rosenblatt, spot on!
PS: Anyone know how Libby is doing?
David – Uh…I only see one post that disagreed with the SCOTUS decision. There are several that provide examples of how A&F could have avoided the whole mess. Additionally, I agreed with the decision.
I think you misspoke about the consistency issue.
Yeah, I’m surprised there weren’t as many dissenters here, given the large hard right faction here. You should have seen the reactions of the right wing blogosphere and the right-wingers on my Facebook feed after the decision came out though. Every so-called religious freedom advocate that supported the Hobby Lobby decision decried this one, saying things like “the Muslims are taking over” and “1 more step towards Sharia.”
I think it is because the people on here are more Constitutionists. We believe in what it stands for, even if it flys in the face of our personal preferences.
Unfortunately, many liberals and conservatives don’t get that. The Constitution is what makes the field level for everyone.
As I said back in Feb, I’m still conflicted on this.
On the one hand, requiring someone to remove their religious items, whether its a hijab, cross or yarmulke, as a condition of employment, does seem like religious discrimination. But on the other hand, requiring a company to alter a dress code that’s part of their nationally-recognized brand, to accommodate a potential employee, seems like a swing in the other direction.
Although I do feel for her – no one should have to choose between a job and staying true to their faith – I’m leaning more towards A&F. If something like this happened at a store like Macy’s or Target, where I’m sure they have a dress code, but not one that’s specifically designed to represent their brand, I’d agree with her. But with a company like A&F, that is well-known for having such strict imaging guidelines, that they even dictate what hairstyles employees can wear (see link below,) I’m less sympathetic.
Knowing what a company’s dress code is before even applying, but still applying even though you know you won’t be able to comply with it, seems like you’re looking more for a problem, than a job. It kind of reminds me of the men who sued Hooters for discrimination because the company wouldn’t hire them as Hooters Girls.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/exclusive-abercrombie-hairstyle-rules-add-to-strict-look-pol#.tbDXl5kBQ8
Yes, BS, there are certain people that engage in a situation to just pick a fight, even though they have no intention or real personal impact to themself.
In my opinion, this is no different than a school football team that has a team prayer prior to the game. If someone does not want to participate, it is their right to not participate. However, it does not give them the right to force others to not have the prayer.
Okay, to apply your analogy, how do you feel if one of those football players was not allowed to play in the game because he didn’t participate in the prayer?
I would agree with you regarding the team prayer, but only if the prayer was not something mandated by the school. ie. I’d be fine with the team’s quarterback or running back asking the team to join him in a prayer, but not the coach or school administrator telling the team to huddle up for a pre-game prayer. Of course, this is only for public schools. If it’s a private, religious school, the administration should be free to require as many pre-game prayers as they want.
Exactly! I couldn’t put it into words as well as you did, but I completely agree.