If the dress code requirement is directly related to job-related hazards or would endanger the health or safety of the employee, I am all on the side of the business. For example, requiring men to be clean-shaven (or at most a mustache) in a workplace that requires respirators, either as regular use or in cases of emergency; forbidding robes or flowing fabric in workplaces with machinery where such apparel could get caught and endanger the employee; headgear that interferes with the proper fit and function of safety helmets, etc.
If the dress code requirement is entirely aesthetic, then I would side with the employee and require the business to demonstrate that allowing the employee to violate the dress code would be a substantial burden on the company.
In the case of the Abercrombie employee, there doesn't appear to be any health and safety related reasons that she cannot wear a hijab, it seems to be an aesthetic thing, so I would side with the employee until such time as A&F demonstrates that allowing her to wear a head covering would harm the business.
If the dress code requirement is entirely aesthetic, then I would side with the employee and require the business to demonstrate that allowing the employee to violate the dress code would be a substantial burden on the company.
In the case of the Abercrombie employee, there doesn't appear to be any health and safety related reasons that she cannot wear a hijab, it seems to be an aesthetic thing, so I would side with the employee until such time as A&F demonstrates that allowing her to wear a head covering would harm the business.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
