Religious Descrimination at Abercrombie & Fitch?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

Even a hat can have religious significance. Not to sound un PC (And really, there's too much of that as it is) but if a seven-eleven worker can wear a turban, is it so unreasonable for A&F to allow a hijab?

I'm pretty sure you can work at 7-11 and wear a baseball hat, as well as a turban.

If they allow other people to wear any form of headjoy, then it's obviously religious discrimination. If no one is allowed to wear one, then it's hat discrimination.

I have a religious devotion to the Red Sox, but my boss still makes me take off the hat.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by migopod

I'm suggesting that perhaps the law shouldn't provide special exemption because of religion.
Why should religion have a higher legal status than say political affiliation?

Grin...

You recognize that I chose this particular article precisely because it reverses the usual knee-jerk reaction sympathies of liberals and conservatives. Conservatives have been asking this same question since 1964.

[JackOfHearts]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I'm pretty sure you can work at 7-11 and wear a baseball hat, as well as a turban.

If they allow other people to wear any form of headjoy, then it's obviously religious discrimination. If no one is allowed to wear one, then it's hat discrimination.

I have a religious devotion to the Red Sox, but my boss still makes me take off the hat.

I would've picked a Fedora. In anycase, it was something she wore to the interview. Its religious significance would've been obvious, and they may or may not have asked about it. Such details are unavailable, unless someone has some new information they'd like to share. Your devotion to a brand hardly qualifies as a religion.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Grin...

You recognize that I chose this particular article precisely because it reverses the usual knee-jerk reaction sympathies of liberals and conservatives. Conservatives have been asking this same question since 1964.

Completely, and at least 30% of me is being devil's advocate (evidently in more ways than one). I'm all for freedom of religion, free exercise and for separation of church and state and all that good constitutional stuff. And I do agree that discriminating against someone because of what they may believe should be illegal, but I agree it's a no-hat policy, not a no-Muslim policy.
In fairness to the plaintiff, A&F were jackasses about it and should have told her that if she was willing to take the hijab off she could work there and at least given her the opportunity to make that decision. Otherwise they should have modified their dress code to allow all head-wear.

Wearing a hat because you're having a bad hair day should be treated with equal seriousness as wearing a hat because it says in a book that you ought to.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I'm pretty sure you can work at 7-11 and wear a baseball hat, as well as a turban.

If they allow other people to wear any form of headjoy, then it's obviously religious discrimination. If no one is allowed to wear one, then it's hat discrimination.

How about a Jew wearing a yarmukle? That has just as much religious significance as turban to a Sihk or a hajib to a Muslim.

If she was wearing a Burqa I MIGHT see A&F's point, but a hajib is nothing of a threat to any image...and not hiring her for wearing one in accordance with her beliefs is retarded in today's world.

If I was hiring her, I might ask if she could wear a different color just to brighten it up, but if she said no, fine...black it is.

I might not hire her for lack of qualifications, but not for religious wear.

A sidelight....in 1988 the Sky Ryders Drum and Bugle Corps from Hutchinson, KS had a member of the pit (front ensemble....stationary percussion like tympani, various keyboards, and misc percussion instrumentation) who was Sihk. He had a religious obligation to wear a turban.

Did the staff cut him because he could not wear a shako like the rest of the corps? Or because he would be the only one in the pit with headgear? Nope...he wore the turban and performed the entire season, including making finals in what was probably Sky's most popular show.

Here's a pic of the pit....he's on the left.



Had he made the field battery (he tried out on multi-tenors from what I was told by another member (he likely could not have worn the turban, since it would not fit with the shakos. He probably would've been asked to wear a patka, which would've fit under a shako.

The point is, the corps made an accommodation for his in order to let him to march instead of clinging to the uniform design and kicking him out.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Presumably because religious discrimination has generally been far more prevelant and virulent historically than political party affiliation.

--Philistine

There was this rough patch during the 1950's in the US where a lot of people had their careers ruined because they were just suspected of being Communists, if we're talking employment discrimination.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

There is a larger question-- for many Muslim women, wearing a head scarf is only one part of their standard dress. They will also wear "modest" clothing-- no tank tops, low cut shirts, etc. Most clothing is fairly loose, and fairly covering (pants or skirts as opposed to shorts)--- but how this is defined for each woman is different. Many women may just go with "modest for this society"-- in which you may not even notice she's making an effort towards modesty. But the question remains, even if someone goes for "modest in this society" if they could find a full wardrobe allowable under the "look" policy.


And I'll point out that we don't know if she was asked if she would take it off and she refused. Plenty of people dress up for interviews wearing things they don't expect to wear during the job. If someone wore a necklace with a cross on it to a job interview where you can't wear any jewelry on the job, that person would get the benefit of the doubt, or at least get the question. We don't know if she got the question here.....

[migopod]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

A sidelight....in 1988 the Sky Ryders Drum and Bugle Corps from Hutchinson, KS had a member of the pit (front ensemble....stationary percussion like tympani, various keyboards, and misc percussion instrumentation) who was Sihk. He had a religious obligation to wear a turban.

Did the staff cut him because he could not wear a shako like the rest of the corps? Or because he would be the only one in the pit with headgear? Nope...he wore the turban and performed the entire season, including making finals in what was probably Sky's most popular show.

Here's a pic of the pit....he's on the left.

(pic)

Had he made the field battery (he tried out on multi-tenors from what I was told by another member (he likely could not have worn the turban, since it would not fit with the shakos. He probably would've been asked to wear a patka, which would've fit under a shako.

The point is, the corps made an accommodation for his in order to let him to march instead of clinging to the uniform design and kicking him out.

The question is did the corps amend their head-gear rules because they wanted to, saw the value of doing so and in respect and deference for his religious obligation ultimately decided that it was the right thing to do, or did they do it because it was legally mandatory for them to do it?

I have no problem with employers allowing head coverings, or even just allowing head coverings for religious reasons (although I prefer a hats-optional dress code). My issue is with the law requiring employers to make exceptions to their stated dress code for religious reasons only.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

I would've picked a Fedora. In anycase, it was something she wore to the interview. Its religious significance would've been obvious, and they may or may not have asked about it. Such details are unavailable, unless someone has some new information they'd like to share. Your devotion to a brand hardly qualifies as a religion.

That a hat has significance to you, or to a group of people, isn't really relevant. They weren't looking at that when they made the decision.

However,

if she was willing to take the hijab off she could work there and at least given her the opportunity to make that decision.

Is a very valid point.

PS- I may be a bit thick, but can we state explicitly how this a reverse-knee jerk?

[migopod]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

PS- I may be a bit thick, but can we state explicitly how this a reverse-knee jerk?

I expect the predicted position would be:
Conservatives should be against hijabs but in favor of things like conscience exceptions for pro-lifey pharmacists not being required to dispense birth control and Liberals should be the opposite. Am I right?

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

How about a Jew wearing a yarmukle? That has just as much religious significance as turban to a Sihk or a hajib to a Muslim.

If she was wearing a Burqa I MIGHT see A&F's point, but a hajib is nothing of a threat to any image...and not hiring her for wearing one in accordance with her beliefs is retarded in today's world.

If I was hiring her, I might ask if she could wear a different color just to brighten it up, but if she said no, fine...black it is.

I might not hire her for lack of qualifications, but not for religious wear.

I don't care that she was wearing a hijab. I think they look cool. However, it's up to the employer. They have a right to run their business how they want.

If a guy wanted to play basketball wearing sharp pins in his hair that could injure other players, would you let him? What if it was to hold down his yarmulke mandated by Jewish law? If you even consider the question differently because of that, it's religious discrimination.

The point is, the corps made an accommodation for his in order to let him to march instead of clinging to the uniform design and kicking him out.

My point is that not that accommodations should never be made. None should be made for religious reasons if we are to be free from religious discrimination.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by migopod

The question is did the corps amend their head-gear rules because they wanted to, saw the value of doing so and in respect and deference for his religious obligation ultimately decided that it was the right thing to do, or did they do it because it was legally mandatory for them to do it?

My understanding is they did it on their own, because it was the right thing to do.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I don't care that she was wearing a hijab. I think they look cool. However, it's up to the employer. They have a right to run their business how they want.

.... within certain limits.

The real question is whether wearing a hijab will have a material effect on the job. If she was working in a stockroom or office then there would be no effect, and so no reason to deny her the job. If she were working for most other clothing retailers, even as a salesperson, then there would be no effect.

BUT A&F hires their salespeople based on appearance, and so the appearance of a person wearing a hat (hijab) is material. The same allowance is made for restaurants like Hooters where the physical appearance of a potential waitress is material to doing the job. Other restaurants would be under much more scrutiny if they turned away capable but less attractive waitresses (or even tried to hire female only staff).

I'd say that since A&F salespeople function as models of the brand clothing then the company has a right to manage the look and clothing of their salespeople to a greater degree than is usual for a typical clothing store.

On a personal level I don't like it, but I don't think it is unreasonable.

[migopod]

How's this for another wrinkle with respect to the hijab.

For Muslim women in the US (or anywhere where Sharia law is not enforced) there is no obligation to wear head covering. Muslim women wear the hijab for various reasons, but the Quran doesn't require it or even mention head covering. Given that it's a personal preference issue and not an explicit article of faith, like the yarmulke or Sikh head coverings, if she were presented at the intervew with the option of being employed at A&F if she agreed to not wear the hijab at work because of the no-hats policy, would this still be religous discrimination? If a Christian was asked to wear a cross inside their shirt rather than outside due to a blanket no-jewelry policy and they were not hired (or fired) because they refused, would they have the same grounds for litigation? There's no specific citable religous commandment to only wear a cross so that it's visible (or even to wear one at all).

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by migopod

Am I right?

You are thinking way too hard. No, not even close.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

You are thinking way too hard. No, not even close.

aww... durn brain pan.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

You are thinking way too hard. No, not even close.

Enlighten, then?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

{snip}
My point is that not that accommodations should never be made. None should be made for religious reasons if we are to be free from religious discrimination.

I'm not sure I understand you.

Are you suggesting that laws against religious discrimination are OK, but that if an employer decides to put in place policies that keep out followers of certain religions (because the policies prevent practices necessary for followers), that that's OK, regardless of whether or not there is any legitimate business reason for the policy?

--Philistine

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

.... within certain limits.

The real question is whether wearing a hijab will have a material effect on the job. If she was working in a stockroom or office then there would be no effect, and so no reason to deny her the job. If she were working for most other clothing retailers, even as a salesperson, then there would be no effect.

BUT A&F hires their salespeople based on appearance, and so the appearance of a person wearing a hat (hijab) is material. The same allowance is made for restaurants like Hooters where the physical appearance of a potential waitress is material to doing the job. Other restaurants would be under much more scrutiny if they turned away capable but less attractive waitresses (or even tried to hire female only staff).

I'd say that since A&F salespeople function as models of the brand clothing then the company has a right to manage the look and clothing of their salespeople to a greater degree than is usual for a typical clothing store.

On a personal level I don't like it, but I don't think it is unreasonable.

So we are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 here...

Would this be true under your theory: someone could create a strongly branded business targeting the snotty rich white female market (and, of course, such chains exist) and could refuse to hire blacks into sales positions because it violated the marketing principles behind the brand?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

So we are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 here...

Would this be true under your theory: someone could create a strongly branded business targeting the snotty rich white female market (and, of course, such chains exist) and could refuse to hire blacks into sales positions because it violated the marketing principles behind the brand?

This seems to be a bit of a straw man, it being much more difficult to not be black than it is to not wear a hat.