American court supports Muslim V. Clothes shop

[Dystopia]

So we discussed this a while ago about whether or not a shop (Abercrombie & Fitch) should be able to discriminate against a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf. It looks like she won.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued for discrimination after being denied a sales job at age 17 at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

In an 8-1 decision in the important religious rights case, the court backed Samantha Elauf, who had been rejected under Abercrombie's sales staff "look policy" after coming to her job interview wearing the head scarf, or hijab, used by many Muslim women.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-ru...nance.html





I'm not sure where I stand on this. I think the decision would be similar in most of the west - I can understand the arguments coming from both sides. Looks and profit are important, but so are the worker's individual rights. Employers shouldn't have absolute ability to discriminate, but workers can't do anything they please. Thoughts?

[KUSA]

What if my religion was Satanism and I wore a a devil mask? Should they hire me if I insisted on wearing it on the job?

[TheRealJoeFish]

Roughly, the Court ruled that she did not have to ask for a religious exemption in order to prevent A&F from denying her a job based on her headscarf. The pertinent facts were:

1) A&F had a "no hats/headwear" policy (not to mention a lot of other appearance policies).
2) Plaintiff applied for a job while wearing a hijab.
3) It never came up during the interview that she was wearing the hijab for religious reasons.
4) A&F (correctly) assumed she was wearing the hijab for religious reasons, and denied her based on the "no headwear" policy, because she had not asked for a religious accommodation.
5) Plaintiff sued for violation of religious rights.
6) A&F responded: she never asked for an accommodation.

So, the question is, do you have to have asked for an accommodation in order to bring this kind of claim? The Supreme Court, overturning the Circuit Court, said no. The rough reasoning, if I recall correctly, was "clearly, if you have a reasonable belief that someone's behavior is protected by antidiscrimination law, you can't fire them (or refuse to hire them) for it even though they haven't come out and assured you it is."

I think it was CJ Roberts who asked A&F something along the lines of "so, if a Sikh man with a turban, a Muslim with a turban, and a Nun walked into A&F, the burden would be on them to explain to you that they weren't just wearing those things as a fashion statement?"

Edit: Do note that, after the decision was announced, A&F was quick to point out that the Plaintiff hadn't won her discrimination claim, she'd just won the right to bring it in court.

[Minimalist]

Apparently the court ruled that Abercrombie was supposed to read her mind.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation to allow her to wear the scarf in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which among other things bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.

Despite wearing the head scarf, she did not specifically say that, as a Muslim, she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation.

[Jenny A]

I think a secular country should accommodate a religious headscarf as long as it really doesn't interfere with the job. In most stores it wouldn't, but in a high fashion salon were the employees are expected to look like living manikins, it might. Obviously it would be a problem were she trying out for a part in a play or as a fashion model.

A devil mask is a bit different. So is a scarf hiding the face. There are good reasons why an employer and customers would want to see the face of the person they are dealing with.

[Minimalist]

"Excuse me, miss.  Do you have this in something even blacker?"

[rexbeccarox]

I think it's bullshit that it's even a question. Work often requires uniforms or dress codes, and if you can't comply with those things, you shouldn't have the job.

Back in the time I owned my shop (a crafting workshop where we made, among other things, jewelry and clothing), I was adamant that my employees dress neatly and stylishly. Would I be facing discrimination charges if I didn't hire someone from the Quiverfull movement because she insisted on wearing old-fashioned clothes? Screw that: my business; my rules.

[Secular Elf]

I think a secular country should accommodate a religious headscarf as long as it really doesn't interfere with the job.  In most stores it wouldn't, but in a high fashion salon were the employees are expected to look like living manikins, it might.   Obviously it would be a problem were she trying out for a part in a play or as a fashion model.

A devil mask is a bit different.  So is a scarf hiding the face.  There are good reasons why an employer and customers would want to see the face of the person they are dealing with.

Yeah, certain accommodations should be allowed, on a case by case basis.  I know Sikhs wear their traditional turbans, once saw a truck driver wearing one.  They also have the traditional dagger that they wear.  So one could argue that is ok to wear the turban but not ok to wear the dagger, for security reasons, though Sikhs are usually, that I am aware of, more peaceful than most other religions from the Indian subcontinent. 

[Dystopia]

Apparently the court ruled that Abercrombie was supposed to read her mind.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation to allow her to wear the scarf in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which among other things bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.

Despite wearing the head scarf, she did not specifically say that, as a Muslim, she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation.

I don't understand this - If she didn't specifically ask to wear it why did they refuse to hire her?

I think a secular country should accommodate a religious headscarf as long as it really doesn't interfere with the job. In most stores it wouldn't, but in a high fashion salon were the employees are expected to look like living manikins, it might. Obviously it would be a problem were she trying out for a part in a play or as a fashion model. 


A devil mask is a bit different. So is a scarf hiding the face. There are good reasons why an employer and customers would want to see the face of the person they are dealing with.

Anything that covers your face is a no-brainer, but a headscarf is far more complicated - I made an ex-Muslim friend in college a few weeks ago, she wears the scarf because she is used to it and contrary to popular belief she lives alone without a husband - She is just so used that she would feel like somebody else if she didn't wear it. I don't see a problem with this, and it isn't necessarily a religious symbol. In France, a girl was banned from classroom because she was wearing a too long skirt that resembled the Islamic religion



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ap...long-skirt



I find this ridiculous because long skirts aren't exclusive to any religion and you cannot identify someone's religion because of the  skirt's length.


I mostly agree with you (as a law student) that reasonable accommodation is the better idea.

I think it's bullshit that it's even a question. Work often requires uniforms or dress codes, and if you can't comply with those things, you shouldn't have the job.


Back in the time I owned my shop (a crafting workshop where we made, among other things, jewelry and clothing), I was adamant that my employees dress neatly and stylishly. Would I be facing discrimination charges if I didn't hire someone from the Quiverfull movement because she insisted on wearing old-fashioned clothes? Screw that: my business; my rules.

I don't entirely disagree with you (or anyone who has replied so far) but keep in mind that the mentality of "my workplace, my rules" promotes employer supremacy and the exploitation of workers and it's the same argument that is used to support super low (or lack of) minimum wages and excessive working hours. Yes, in your workplace (in a capitalist society) you have the power to implement certain rules and codes of behaviour, but there are limits. Many times, for any minority, dressing professionally and stylishly basically means "dress like white westerns do and fuck your culture".

The employer has some level of authority and power but workers have rights as well - Your right to set up dress codes and other rules does not erase the right people have to many things. In this case, I actually feel compelled to agree she should have to be required to take of the headscarf but I wonder what would happen if all employers found out an excuse to not hire people with headscarves?

[JuliaL]

So, is a religious accomodation absolutely required of employers if requested?
Yamulkes are not the only cultural/traditional adornment.
Could get interesting.

---

---

Phallocrypts are decorative penis sheaths worn in parts of New Guinea during traditional ceremonies.