Feds sue Abercrombie & Fitch over Muslim scarf

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(09-01) 17:51 PDT MILPITAS -- A federal civil rights agency sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Wednesday on behalf of an 18-year-old woman who said she applied for her first job at the company's store at the Great Mall in Milpitas and was turned down because she wore a Muslim head scarf.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission went to court against Abercrombie & Fitch last year over a similar incident in Tulsa, Okla. In Wednesday's suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the agency again accused the Ohio company of discriminating on the basis of religion.

"This retailer that targets a youth market is sending the message that you cannot aspire to their 'All American' brand if you wear a head covering to comply with your faith," said William Tamayo, the agency's regional attorney.

Company representatives could not be reached for comment. In court filings in the Oklahoma case, which is pending, lawyers for Abercrombie & Fitch denied discriminating and said allowing the employee to wear a hijab, or head scarf, "would have created an undue hardship" for the company's business.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/01/BATJ1F7BVC.DTL

---

Excuse me? One employee wearing a burqa for religious purposes in a country that guarantees EVERYONE from Christians to Jews to Scientologists to Muslims to Wiccans to atheists/agnostics religious freedom? Because it'd scare people? And a burqa doesn't fit into "all American" brand...when America's supposed to be the land of tolerance, acceptance, diversity, and individual freedom? Gosh that sounds like some pandering to me.

[jobycom]

1. I'm confused, where do you see a mention of burqas? nt

[Mariana]

80. Some people think EVERY Muslim woman wears a burqa, I guess.

Probably thinks hijab is just another name for burqa, that they're the same thing.

[Regret My New Name]

113. Might be due to ignorance about the differences between burqas, hijab and other such things...

[Starbucks Anarchist]

2. Hijab, not burqa.

Hijab:



Burqa:

[RandomThoughts]

5. Had a thought.

When I see that first picture, I think that lady is pretty.

That must be what those that like women wearing the Burqa fear.

People thinking women are pretty.


Why don't men have to wear a Burqa?



The second picture makes me sad, seems wrong to me.

[alp227]

95. Sorry for confusing my words late last night. I think some American men voluntarily wear burqas

Found this pic online of Crips gang members. Look at the young man in the far right

[superconnected]

105. I agree, the first lady was pretty, the second looked scary to me - like

trying to erase the woman.

[greyl]

3. Never would have happened at Benetton! nt

[mdmc]

18. united colors

colours!

[napi21]

4. I guess you can call me a bigot but I side with A&F on this one.

No business wants customers to be turned off by their sales personnel and I suspect that's what would happen in any retail business. I don't see that as anti religious at all. Nobody is telling anyone they can't practice their religion. They're asking that their employees to present the company image which aparently is "All American Brand".

[sandnsea]

6. I bet they said that about minorities too

And gays, or people who "look" gay.

Nope, freedom trumps profits. We've all adjusted to new normals over the years, we'll adjust to this one too.

[Tunkamerica]

15. Are you kidding? This is Abercrombie...

The whole store is homoerotic imagery

[depakid]

24. ...

Current home page:

Get into our jeans...




:rofl:

ttp://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/HomePage?langId=-1&storeId=11203&catalogId=10901

[izquierdista]

94. Probably targeted by religious nutcases for that reason

[AlbertCat]

27. Nope, freedom trumps profits.

Guffaw!


In what world?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

69. I seriously doubt that is an issue for them,

I would be astonished if many heterosexual men work there at all,

[Starbucks Anarchist]

8. Would you say the same about a Jewish person wearing a yarmulke?

After all, it's a "head covering" that A&F doesn't allow.

[napi21]

40. I don't know, but I'd say it about a nun working there.

Or a priest wearing hius roman collar. Sorry, it just doesn't fit the program.

[Mimosa]

63. Exactly!

A&F has a right to have employees project their look.

[No Elephants]

79. IOW, you can't distinguish between apples and oranges, either. See Reply 74.

"A&F has a right to have employees project their look."

Nope, no such right under our laws. However, all employers over a certain size, DO have a legal DUTY to make "reasonable accomodation" for the religious practices of their employees.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

64. Why would a nun or priest work there?

That doesn't even make any sense, and there's no comparison to the hijab-wearing woman, who is not a clergy member.

[napi21]

72. It's a display f a religious symbol the same as the hijab is

and I think it would deter customers. As to why either a nun or priest would work at a retailer...you may not have heard but many local Catholic Churches are having serious money problems and it would not surprise me at all that at least priests would need to get a job.

[No Elephants]

74. Oh, please. You ducked the question about the yarmulke, which is comparable, by

introducing vowed clergy, which is not comparable. Now, you're pulling stuff about priests having to work at AF straight out of your ear.

[Bragi]

81. I'd prefer people didn't wear religious displays of any sort

I would include yamulkes as displays of piety that I find annoying. I wouldn't ban such displays, but I don't appreciate them or think they are helpful or useful to anyone. I'd prefer people to refrain from shoving their religion into my face.

[wookie72]

86. Well, in the words of Snoop Dogg, tough shiznit. nt

[No Elephants]

136. You decide what "useful or helpful" to someone who wears a yarmulke or scarf?

If people try to convert you, that's one thing, but wearing a scarf or a yarmulke is about them, not about shoving anything in your face. Perfumes send me into uncontrollable coughing that sometimes hurts a lot, but I don't take anyone's wearing aftershave on a bus personally, nor do I have any right to do so.

Government is a different story. For instance, I don't think creches or menorahs (or pentagrams) should appear in public parks, no matter how many snowpeople or dreidels or Santas surround them. But, the Supreme Court did not go my way on that.

[MadHound]

245. Where's all the angst when clerks where a cross then?

Do you get bent out of shape just as much about that as you are about this?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

110. No, a hijab is more akin to a cross pendant or a yarmulke.

Clergymen don't dress in the manner typical of their parishioners, so it's a bad analogy.

[napi21]

167. Ok, you'r right. I wouldn't hire anyone who wore a yarmulke

OR an exposed cross around their neck to work in the A&F store if I were the manager. I just don't think it's appropriate. A&F aren't the only retailers who dismiss certain personal attire. I know Home Depot will ot permit any emploees to wear t-shirts with any printed message, any display of religious symboles like crosses or anything political. I'm not sure how many other things are on that list. Kmart & WM also have restrictions.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

168. Then you're a bigot who doesn't understand the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

172. The yarmulke for Jewish men and head covering for Muslim women are

religious requirements. None of the other things you mentioned are. If you would not hire a man who wore a yarmulke, you would probably be in violatiion of the Civil Rights Act.

[davidinalameda]

173. no they're not

there are plenty of Jewish men who don't wear them and plenty of Muslim women who don't wear them either

are they bad Jews and Muslims or something?

[No Elephants]

176. Yes, they are requirements, just not of all denominations. Neither Judaism nor

Islam is monolithic, just as Christianity isn't.


Most non-Catholic Christians are not required to confess their sins to a priest before taking Communion. Catholics Christians are. Does't mean Protestants are bad Christians if they don't confess to a priest, nor does it mean that no Christian is required to confess to a priest.

[davidinalameda]

228. you said and I quote

The yarmulke for Jewish men and head covering for Muslim women are religious requirements.

contradict yourself much?

[No Elephants]

234. Where did I say yarmulke was a requirement for ALL Jewish men? Or a head scarf was required for

EVERY Muslim woman?

No, I did not contradict myself. However, since you never seem able to distinguish between 19 members of Al Qaida who flew into the WTC and 1.5 billion other Muslims who neither did that nor joined Al Q'aeeda, I am not surprised you totally missed the distinction and also seem to have totally missed X-Diggers attempt to further explain my point to you via relatively rudimentary logic.

[X_Digger]

183. All squirrels are mammals, but not all mammals are squirrels. n/t

[davidinalameda]

229. and you're neither?

:shrug:

[Arrowhead2k1]

237. Nuns and priests are occupations, what they wear can be considered uniforms.

The hijab is merely a religious article which may be worn by regular everyday Muslims.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blandocyte]

23. Yes, that remark reeks of bigotry

Besides, by law, businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on religion. The details, such as discrimination against people who wear clothing mandated by their religion, are left to be sorted out in court.

The Freepers and Tea Klanners wish it were not true, but America is supposed to be the land of the free where we all can practice or not practice our religion, and those practices sometimes involve wearing clothing that is ordered by the particular book o' rules someone follows.

Aren't there are some Christian religions that mandate certain types of clothing be worn?

If A & F wanted to make some bucks they might bring out a line of headscarves that could be used as hijabs. If that line took off, they'd probably be recruiting muslim women to work at their stores.


Oooh. My post # 666.

[AlbertCat]

30. I guess you can call me a bigot but I side with A&F on this one.

Yeah! And those Christians must stop wearing crosses around their necks. It might scare off anyone in a headscarf!


Personally, I think the problem is any stupid religious dress codes from the 5th century. But changing that is gonna take more than any law.

[jberryhill]

49. I'd like to know if they allow, say, baseball caps

If they allow baseball caps, but not head scarves (which as noted downthread is headwear worn by non-muslims as well), then there is a problem, because they are specifically singling this out on the basis of religion.

I would be willing to bet that a fair number of their clerks wear crucifixes.

[No Elephants]

73. Law does not require "reasonable accomodation" for baseball fandom or for caps of any kind.

Iaw does require "reasonable accomodation" for religious practices.

[jberryhill]

117. I realize that

I just think it would be odd if they allowed one sort of head covering but not another, specifically because it was religious.

[No Elephants]

68. Define "All American." WASP? I thought America's most salient characteristic was being a nation of

immigrants. Of course, some wanted to pull up the gangplank after the Mayflower, some after the Irish potato famine, some after the Italians (not counting Vespuccio or Columbus or non-whites), etc.


Does AF hire Asians? Hispanics? Jews? Catholics? Buddhists? Wiccans?


So, which religions and/or ethnicities qualify as "All American?" By whose standards?


Btw, wearing the scarf IS practicing her religion. So, I have no idea what distinction you're trying to make between wearing a scarf and practicing her religion.

[Dems2002]

198. Actually...

A&F lost a class action lawsuit in Southern California for discriminating against Asians. South Coast Plaza had a number of Asians working there and after a national rep came by, most of them were fired.

A&F wants to cater to the WASP crowd and so hires young, blond, blue-eyed and good-looking.

[No Elephants]

214. Proves my points. It's about a WASP look, not about an "all-American" look.

A a WASP look was not an "all-American" look in 1607, nor is it an "all-American" look in 2010.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

75. Yeah . I used to work at a car dealership where the boss didn't ...

.... want African American salespeople helping old white Buick buyers so he kept hiring to a minimum in "that area". It wasn't racist. It was just business. He also didn't like to promote them to managers. Just business you know - image!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. yup.

[jberryhill]

141. The code term is "front office appearance"

When employers put that on requests to employment agencies, it means "Don't send black people for interviews."

[roxiejules]

236. It isn't about race...

the front office look is about young,attractive and well groomed. That term discriminates against anyone who doesn't fit the profile; in particular the older and overweight.

[Quantess]

241. or obese people.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. customers could be turned off by black people or gay people

or brown people or asian people or women

So yes, your comment more than being bigoted is also stupid. how far should be allow business to go because customers might be put off? since when are muslims not american?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. OK.

I'll do that.

[jobycom]

149. Not a bigot, you just haven't thought it through well enough.

I used to work at a retail store that routinely refused to hire minorities in their stores. They hired them for the office and warehouse, but when it came to sales and management, they claimed that the applicant "Did not fit their image." They used the same reasoning as Abercrombie & Fitch, and you, in saying that in Dallas people just didn't feel comfortable buying merchandise from people who looked, smelled, or spoke in non-white ways.

The "We don't want customers turned off by our sales personnel" is exactly how discrimination works. As someone who trained sales people and management and was frequently one of that company's top salespeople (out of over forty stores), I can promise you that appearance has almost nothing to do with sales ability. One of the best salespeople I worked with was a man from India with extreme body odor, an accent, and a constantly shabby and stained suit. He outsold me, he outsold all the pretty white girls... Sales is a skill, not based on a religion or a race.

A&F's excuse doesn't hold true. They can train anyone to sell, or represent their product. They can make reasonable adjustments so that she can meet their image requirements and still fulfill her religious requirements. This is more crude than I usually get, but I've seen some very hot women in hijabs who would have no trouble inspiring the juvenile sexual fantasies A&F uses to sell their merchandise. And if she turns out to be untrainable or can't sell, then she can be let go after the probationary period for that reason. There are always people, even those who fit Abercrombie & Fitch's pretty image, who can't sell, so I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time.

[No Elephants]

174. +1 almost (love most of your post, ibut you're on your own for the last few sentences)

[krabigirl]

194. do they ban crosses around the neck?

[JDPriestly]

7. As I read this, I believe this young woman was just wearing a head scarf,

not a full burqa. There is a huge difference. A burqa might be intimidating to customers because you can't see the salesperson's face. But a head scarf? No intimidation at all. A headscarf does not make the person wearing it look frightening. The black masks that some women wear are pretty intimidating. I think it is the woman's business if she wears it, but where she wears can be s a question.

I will bet that the store that does not want the woman to wear the headscarf also does not permit women to work in short shorts or bathing suits. Most retail stores have dress codes.

You certainly could not wear a burqa or even a head scarf if you were working at a restaurant that required you to wear a uniform.

So an employer has a certain right to impose a dress code if the code is relevant to the work.

[dkf]

9. For discrimination purposes I don't see the difference between a burqa or a headscarf.

Both say the same thing.

[JDPriestly]

13. A person cannot claim discrimination if the person is otherwise not

qualified for the job. For example, say I am very short, under five feet tall. I probably can't claim that I am being discriminated against if I apply for a job for which only tall people are qualified. If my religion prohibits me from working on Saturday, but I am specifically apply for a job that requires the applicant to be able to work on Saturday, the employer is not discriminating against my if the employer denies me the job.

If the headgear the woman wants to wear is really not appropriate in that it would frighten customers, then it probably would not discrimination to prohibit her from wearing it. A headscarf would probably not be intimidating. But the burqa veils would probably frighten a lot of people. If you deal with the public in our country, you need to be able to smile at the customer. You probably don't need to display your hair to the customer in a clothing store, but you need to show your face. Smiling at customers is probably a requirement of the job -- at least the occasional smile.

This is just my opinion. It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

[No Elephants]

99. A person wearing a burqa for religious reasons is very unlikely to apply for a job anywhere, let

alone at AF. If she does, we can discuss it then. As you said, the issues are very different. With a burqa, you don't know if you are hiring Mother Theresa or Jeffrey Dahmer.

[JDPriestly]

175. Mother Teresa or Jeffrey Dahmer. That's the problem.

Actually, I think the point of the burqa as opposed to the scarf, is to insure that the woman cannot have much personal contact with the world.

If you are my age or older, you remember a time when Catholic nuns wore garb that looked very much like burkas. It was, of course, to emphasize their chastity and their detachment from the world. I suppose that the burqa serves the same purpose. There is nothing wrong with that, but that detachment from the world might not be very effective in selling clothes. I just don't think a woman could sell stylish clothing in a burqa -- in a headscarf, yes, but in a burqa, no.

[depakid]

14. Not sure that a burka would fit under reasonable accomodations for this job

headscarf on the other hand....


Queen Elizabeth II's headscarf: I do love a headscarf and the Queen has worn one all her life; even while driving a tank. It's a fabulous design as it's a simple square of fabric, practical, disposable, yet individual. In the 1950s every housewife wore one.
------

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/features/milliners-paradise-stephen-jones-turns-detective-to-curate-a-new-exhibition-at-the-va-1607025.html?action=Popup&ino=12

[roxiejules]

50. The scarves were worn outside....

like a hat to protect the hair.

[No Elephants]

111. Not necessarily outside, or to protect the hair, but what's your point?

In the 1940's and the 1950's, scarves were worn indoors and outdoors, including to conceal hair on a bad hair day or because the hair was in pincurls or rollers. Or, to cover heads in church. Or as a fashion statement. (What's more "all-American"--whatever the hell that may mean-- than all the Rosie the Riveters of all races and religions who wore their scarves at work?)

But 1940 and 1950 are 70 and 60 years ago, respectively. And both pre-dated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to which AF is subject. Please see also Reply #68.

[roxiejules]

240. Point

Businesses don't hire people unless they like how they look, act and dress.

Religious attire is a not just a meaningless representation of faith, it also represents a set of specific beliefs, and these beliefs are often discriminatory and exclusionary.



P.S.

Women did not wear scarves covering their head in offices/dept. stores in the 50's; in a factory it was more acceptable, but it was to keep hair and sweat off face.

[dkf]

87. Maybe outside.

But isn't taking off headgear while indoors a courtesy/etiquette thing?

[No Elephants]

114. Please see Reply 111. Removing a hat indoors or in elevators has been considered polite for MEN--IF

the headcovering was not connected to religion, as it is for some Jewish men and some Muslims men. If it was religion-directed, however, people never considered it rude, per se, 'tho some bigots may have been offended simply because differences annoy them, not because they confused religion with a breach cf etiquette.

For women, no, it has never been considered rude to wear a headcovering indoors, religious or not. Quite the opposite. Women who did not cover their heads in church were a tad scandalous. And a hat, indoors or out, ccompleted your outfit, as did gloves, even indoors. Watch a movie from the 1940's some time.'

And here's a tip: etiquette (as opposed to empty rules) is ALWAYS about taking care of others, physically and emotionally. Never about making them feel bad--especially about a difference like religion. If you've ever seen the dining scene in Pretty Woman, Ralph Bellamy, who picked up his own food with his fingers, saying he could never figure out which utensil to use, when Julia Roberts was befuddled, was practicing perfect etiquette.

But, what's your point, as to this thread? that this Muslim woman is somehow being rude because she is faithful to her own religious tradition?

[jberryhill]

143. Google the term "church hat" /nt

[No Elephants]

163. What's your point?

[jberryhill]

164. No point, really, I just want to piss you off /nt

[No Elephants]

178. In that case, please see Reply #177.

Suggesting I google "church hat" is supposed to piss me off? LOL

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

84. If you can't imagine any difference between an employer's ability to see someone's face and not

being able to see someone's face, you are not thinking very hard.

[rpannier]

10. Since it's a headscarf AF needs to get a clue

If it were a burqa they could get around that with a company dress code

[boppers]

11. "Must display hair" and "must display face"?

How about "must display genitals"?

Since it's all about showing, or not showing "naughty bits", which are dictated by religions and cultures.

[No Elephants]

116. Displaying genitals in public is against the law. And which religion REQUIRES you to

display your genitals in public again?

I think we agree on substance, but your analogy fails. The issue here is reasonable accomodation by an employer of lawful conduct a religion requires.

[jberryhill]

144. Mine does

...and you'd be surprised how often I am arrested for simply practicing my religion.

[No Elephants]

156. Can I join?

[jberryhill]

157. Depends, post a picture /nt

[No Elephants]

177. Oh, this is a one person religion? Then never mind. I've already seen YOUR picture.

[gateley]

12. I blame the fucking Republicans for banging the Muslims Want To Kill You drum --

and A&F apparently didn't learn their lesson. I hope they get the book thrown at them. The Koran.

[Heywood J]

16. Color me surprised...

A company that sold thongs for children, discriminated against women, and accused customers of faking autism is alleged to have discriminated against someone else. I'm so shocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_&_Fitch#Legal_issues

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wookie72]

39. Thanks for the link

The one about the artificial limb is just appalling. And the autistic woman... wow.

[pipoman]

17. Once again someone on the DU

goes to bat for Muslim love and gets it. If this were a sect of a Christian religion this would be a hate fest.

That said, nobody is denying anyone their freedom of religion. The employer has a dress code. That dress code is justified as it is a f--ing clothing/fashion store. You have no right to come into my business and roll out your prayer rug, burn incense, bathe in holy water, or otherwise make a spectacle of yourself either. So, in order to claim one's religious freedom, one must be allowed to do so inside an Abercrombie & Fitch retail outlet? What if she were a Rastafarian, should A&F have to allow her so smoke the ganja on the sales floor? Tell us all again who is being denied religious freedom?

[depakid]

19. Hardly!

It's a reasonable accommodation required by federal law.

See: # EEOC v. Blockbuster, Inc. No. CIV 04 2007 PHX FJM (D. Ariz. June 8, 2005)

The Phoenix District Office alleged in this Title VII case that Blockbuster, a video rental chain, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for a 17-year-old part-time customer service representative who consistent with his Jewish religious beliefs wore a yarmulke.

Charging party was hired at a Blockbuster store in Phoenix in November 2002. On his second day of work, defendant's Regional Manager told him that wearing the yarmulke violated defendant's dress code, which prohibits headwear, and that he had to remove the yarmulke or leave. Charging party was forced to compromise his religious beliefs by working without his yarmulke for approximately 2 months. Upon receiving charging party's EEOC charge, defendant told him he could resume wearing his yarmulke.

Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $50,000 in monetary relief. A Blockbuster senior human resources official will send a letter to charging party expressing regret for any failure to accommodate his request for a religious accommodation.

All of the injunctive relief provisions in the decree apply to defendant's Phoenix-area facilities and some also apply to facilities in Scottsdale, Arizona. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating against Phoenix- area employees based their religious beliefs and requires it to accommodate those employees' religious beliefs.

The decree also requires defendant to train its Phoenix employees, as well as other employees with direct human resources responsibilities for Phoenix and Scottsdale employees, regarding the duty to provide religious accommodation. Finally, at each of its Scottsdale and Phoenix facilities defendant will: (1) post a notice informing employees that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on religion as well as retaliation and advising them of the right to file a discrimination charge; and (2) amend its Employee Handbook and Standard Operating Procedures to provide for exceptions to the Dress and Grooming Standards to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.

http://archive.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement06-05.html

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blandocyte]

25. Women, minorities, people with disabilities, and those religious

people who are required by their religion to wear certain clothing. All protected against employment discrimination by the same law. Do you want to repeal the protections for the groups other than religious groups, too?

[harmonicon]

28. what businesses should Muslims be allowed to work in?

Is it the case that every business should be allowed to discriminate against Muslim women, or just some?

[pipoman]

29. Any business they want, including A&F

but that doesn't necessarily mean they can wear or do anything they wish in the name of religious freedom. Should A&F, or society in general be required to allow ANY dress or activity requirements claimed by any religion?

[LostinVA]

34. I am 100% on Disney's side in their current case re: headscarf

And, I think Disney is evil. But, this isn't a "cast members" who was hired under certain conditions, it's a young women who will be wearing "hip" clothes, and probably being as annoyingly "cool" as A & F clerks usually are. Your posts in this thread are rather offensive, but I think you know that.

If she wants to pray during her break, who cares? If someone wants to read their Bible, who cares? If someone wants to meditate, read, nap, whatever during their break, who cares?

I honestly hope you are not a hiring manager, because if you are, you REALLY need to bone up on labor laws.

[No Elephants]

123. AF is required by law to make reasonable accomodation. What in God's name is unreasonable about

wearing a yarmulke-- or a scarf--in a retail store? It's unreasonable only if you have a bias against observant Jewish men or observant Muslim women. And that is what the Civil Rights Act--and common decency and Christianity ALL forbid.

[LostinVA]

33. This has nothing to do about praying or smoking weed in the store

:wtf:

I find your post extremely offensive.

Want to bet A & F would complain about a Rasta's dreads? Guess what, they'd LOVE them.
If the girl will wear A&F clothes and whatever else the freaks want, fine. Thus is A & F, after all, who are known for discriminating against about everyone.

[pipoman]

36. Really?

Would you find it equally offensive if A&F were, say, disallowing employees from wearing W.W.J.D. tee shirts on the sales floor? Or giant crucifix necklaces? This hasn't a single thing to do with A&F to me...I have never been in an A&F store and likely never will. This is a more general question of to what extent employers must accommodate religious customs in the work place.

[wookie72]

45. a t shirt would probably conflict with the uniform, which is a different story

And I have known of no place that requires no crucifixes.

A&F has not demonstrated why this woman showing her hair is a requirement of her "look." Would a woman with alopecia be turned down?

[Bluenorthwest]

58. In what way is a WWJD tee shirt a 'religious custom'?

What form of historical context do such shirts have in the religious tradition? How do you rationalize such clothing with the words of St Paul about women's sartorial strictures?
And of course, Rastafarians are not legally permitted to smoke ganja by the Federal government, nor by the government of OK. So you have an answer on that strawman. Rastas can not smoke ganja on the salesfloor. Nor at home, legally. That is where your 'religious freedoms' in this nation become so hypocritical, there is freedom for mainstream Christianity, not for others.
Christians who believe in equality in practice, for example in the marriage rites, are also forbidden the practice of their faith.

[keroro gunsou]

66. again

it's freedom for all or for none. can't favor one over the other. the af store in the mall i worked at had employees with crosses and a few "religiously charged" shirts and no one got in any trouble. then again this mall is in the middle of good old white, christian, republican land, so miles may vary....

i have no doubt in my mind that if someone wanted to wear an something like a hijab or something from a faith other than christianity that that store wouldn't even bother to interview them and that's just wrong.

it's called a tyranny of the majority for a reason.

[No Elephants]

125. Which religious tradition REQUIRES adherents to wear giant crucifixes whenever they appear

in public again? Hope you didn't hurt yourself building that strawman.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

248. Dreadlocks? You have never been to an A&F have you...

Their going for the Hitler Youth look around there, I don't think dreadlocks would terribly welcome.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. You are way out there! Rastafarians are not allowed the

sacrament of ganja in the United States, not in private, certainly not in public, and very much so not in OK. They are in fact denied their religious freedom in that regard, across the board.
So foisting absurdities like that shows your level of respect for the discussion. Rastas smoking ganja on the sales floor! And of course, the strawman about 'Christian sects'. Rastafarianism is an offshoot of Christianity, they believe in the divine nature of Jesus, and they hold to the Trinity as well.
Such a confusing post you made!

[wookie72]

43. Seriously? Get off your high horse.

There is very little in the way of "Christian persecution" these days. But the thing that really gets me is the idea that this would create "undue hardship" for A&F. Apparently they wouldn't be able to sell their Hitler Youth image (note: that assessment has nothing to do with their discrimination and everything to do with their ads. Seriously, look at them) if they had someone who showed a different kind of America.

[keroro gunsou]

62. oh brother

the poor persecuted majority. christians often deserve some of the bashing they get for the behavior of some of the "christians."

it's either for all, or freedom for none. their can be no other way. to give one group special treatment, goes against what america should stand for, and makes it look like there is an official state religion. it's ok for christians to wear their religious symbols, so why not some other group? it's a show of their faith to their brand of god. now, if they decide to start preaching about their god, then there is an issue. obeying your religious dictates hardly constitutes preaching or causing some business hardship. if one takes that to the illogical extreme, then they could crack on the jewish employees for following the kosher laws.

the rastafarian reference is disingenious, since i'd like to think most rastas would be smart enough to NOT be lighting up at work.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

65. And the Muslim woman wasn't doing any of those things.

And smoking pot it illegal, as you know, so there's no comparison at all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. What's that on your shoulder? I can't make it out from here.

Is it an Intel microprocessor, or a Pringles?

[Lilith Velkor]

193. It's a wooden cross.

[No Elephants]

122. You are wrong on so many things, from wearing a scarf = making a spectacle of yourself before decent

people to no one is denied freedom of religion, "only" a job. Sorry, just don't have the patience to point out all of them, especially when facts and reason seem to have little to do with your Muslim hate anyway.

"Tell us all again who is being denied religious freedom?"


Are you implying seeing a woman in a scarf, or having to hire a woman in a scarf, somehow denies someone his or her RELIGIOUS freedom? I sincerely hope not, or I'd really worry about you going about without a helmet.

[Codeine]

124. The Right hates Islam

so DU automatically feels obligated to embrace it and give it big, wet, sloppy kisses -- nevermind the fact that religion in general and Islam in particular is anathema to everything for a secular progressive party should stand. We understand that it's complete bullshit when the fundie Jeebus freaks cram their idiotic mythology in our faces, but suddenly we're having a big ol' love-in for a religion that forces women to wear coverings.

Religion is poison.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

129. You're assuming all Muslims are fundies, which they are not.

If this woman was one or was forced, she'd be in a burqa, not a hijab, which is also common attire for women in moderate Muslim countries.

[No Elephants]

133. ? Plenty of Muslim "fundies" don't wear burqas.

[Codeine]

135. Burquas are fairly rare even for fundies.

You only see those in a handful of places.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

137. But you're also claiming hijabs are all part of a fundamentalist system, which they are not.

[No Elephants]

131. You're entitled to your own opinions, even your un-Constitutional opinions, but you are not entitled

to your own facts.

First and foremost, Progressives, even secular ones, are bound by, and stand for, the entire Constitution of the United States, including ALL of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects Free Exercise of Religion, as well as protecting people from establishment of religion. Moreover, it was the Dixiecrats and other cons who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Progressives conceived of it and got it passed over the objections of conservatives of both Parties.


A Progressive Party stands for freedom for all, not only for the few who hate religion as much as you seem to. (I was an atheist for huge chunk of my life, but I was never venomous about, or enraged by, people who weren't atheists, so your view is not representative of all atheists, let alone all Progressives.)

I will "defend to the death" your right (and mine) to complete separation of church and state. (I think churches should pay taxes, etc.) However, if even seeing a private person in a scarf in AF somehow affects your freedom, you are probably going to be unhappy about that for as long as you live.

[pipoman]

154. Come on down to the gungeon for a demonstration on the falacy

of this:

First and foremost, Progressives, even secular ones, are bound by, and stand for, the entire Constitution of the United States, including ALL of the First Amendment.

Truth is I am all for religious freedom. The main point I was trying to make with my first post in this sub-thread #17, is that every single religious thread concerning Christians in GD turns into a 'Jesus is a fraud', and 'f-- them there Christians' pile-on. OTOH nearly every thread about Muslim sillyness results in a grand showing of the love from the masses hereabouts...I just don't quite get it..

[No Elephants]

162. Nope. No progressive denies the right to bear arms. the 'well regulated militia clause is WIDE

open for interpretation, however. Interpreting a clause differently than you might like is a different issue from not standing for the entire Constitution, so my prior post was not fallacious.

I agree that Duers often bash Christianity--and religion in general. I often argue against both, too. However, I very much do get why Christianity gets singled out.

One reason is insistence by CERTAIN Christians that their particular beliefs get enshrined in secular law, from gay marriage to pulling the plug on Schiavo. And other attempts to impose CERTAIN Christian beliefs and practices on everyone via govvernment, like insisting on Christmas trees on public property, including calling them "Christmas trees" and not "holiday trees." And, when people object to having the beliefs of CERTAIN Christians forced on them that way, having CERTAIN Christians whine-- totally falsely--that their own religious freedom is being denied them.

[pipoman]

235. See, I agree that the most liberal

interpretation of all rights is a liberal and a progressive tenant. If you see my posts in one place you would find I am always arguing for liberal interpretation of all rights. This issue actually doesn't have a single thing to to with the first amendment, it is a labor law issue/EOE and all that. The Bill of Rights is of coarse limitations on government, they have nothing at all to do with private business or residences.

[Quantess]

246. I "Like" your post.

[Quantess]

148. I agree with that.

If she wants to work at A&F, she can take off her religious garb while she's working, and put it back on when her shift is over. Same rules would apply for yarmulke or a conspicuous cross.

[No Elephants]

158. Did you read the other responses to Reply 17?

[Quantess]

169. Yes, I did.

I guess I'm sort of personally put off by religious displays in general.

A headscarf is really no big deal, as is a yarmulke or a visible cross pendant. But, they are sort of distracting, the same way that visible tattoos and piercings are. I personally don't mind any of them too much, but I can see why a retail business wouldn't want any of that on display while the person is at work. Same goes for teachers.

[No Elephants]

184. Please see Reply 149. Also, wearing a cross or a piercing is very different

from wearing a yarmulke or a head scarf. Wearing yarmulkes and head scarfs are religious requirements for some people. the others are not.

I don't know why either a yarmulke or a head scarf on a retail floor would be distracting to anyone who is not biased against the religions involved.

If I see a priest or nun walking around, I note the garb very fleetingly, understand the reason for it and that's it. Same for a yarmulke or a head scarf. Other kinds of clothing are far more distracting, not to mention hairdos and hair colors. Still, none of it would distract or deter me from shopping, unless I were biased.

[LostinVA]

31. There's nothing about a burka -- if there was, I'd be on A & F's side

But, if she'll wear A & F clothes and just wear a head scarf, that should be fine. This is very different from the Disney case.

on edit: And no, I don't think burkas fit into the "All-American Brand," in ANY way. I think they are disgustingly misogynist, and also have zero basis in the Koran.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

130. Exactly.

[The_Commonist]

32. "Not Abercrombie look..."

That's what this all comes down to.
Fashion companies are obsessed with their image.
What their employees look like is their brand.
I'm a 47-year old paunchy white dude with a ponytail.
Abercrombie would never hire me to be a salesperson, and I would be a fool to think otherwise.
And you would be a fool to act like they were being bigoted and discriminating for not hiring me.
I am "not Abercrombie look."

That being said, I think they fucked up on this one.
They had a chance to show that they are cool, and they blew it.
Of course, there may have been other things about the girl that were "not Abercrombie look."
And if they had hired her for a stocking position, it might not have "created an undue hardship for the company's business" if customers couldn't see her much anyway.
At the very least, they should have just thanked her for the interview, and put her application in a drawer and forgot about it. That's what happens with most job applications anyway.
If they actually told her that they wouldn't hire her because of the headscarf, they fucked up and deserve to be sued.

[LostinVA]

37. They did screw up -- this is a huge market for them

Lots of Muslim girls and guys wear A & F, why wouldn't they? Not every person who is Muslim follows Sharia law. It's ridiculous to think so. This season, the "Real World" on MTV has a Muslim-American woman, who, guess what? DRESSES AND LOOKS AND SOUNDS JUST LIKE US! She wears shorts and everything. :eyes: They are not a monolithic group.

[No Elephants]

150. Having a ponytail and a paunch are not things for which an employer has a legal duty to

make "reasonable accomodation." those consist of religion (which most people are born into and, in any event, is a Constitutional guarantee) and things people are "born," such as gender, ethnicity and "race."

[Bragi]

35. I oppose public displays of religion

I find all public displays of religion -- all of them -- to be unwelcome and annoying.

While I recognize that US religious "freedom" means unfettered freedom to push one's religion in the face of others, regardless of how offensive or divisive this might be, I support the French approach, which is to ban all religious symbols from the public square, including scarves, religious clothing, accessories, etc.

I wish someone creative could invent a symbol of some sort that people who do not appreciate the religious displays of others could wear. Something that symbolically says: "I do not appreciate your display of religiosity, and wish you did not need that kind of crutch to get you through the day."

[wookie72]

46. I suppose if this were Logan's Run

Where we all wore the chrome jumpsuits, you would be happy.

Read what you said... you actually need something to say that you do not appreciate someone else's personal expression. That's... just weird.
The French ban was a sop to right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment. Not something to be proud of.

[Bragi]

78. You wrote:

"you actually need something to say that you do not appreciate someone else's personal expression. That's... just weird."

I would not support making religious displays illegal, but I would wear a symbol that indicated I do not appreciate people shoving their religion at me.

Nothing particularly weird about that that i can see.

[wookie72]

89. Yeah, it is weird.

Because you're essentially saying "I resent someone else's freedom."

Wear a T-Shirt that says that. But You know what? Most people will ignore it, just like you can ignore people's religious symbols.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

112. You could draw a picture of a crying baby and staple it to your shirt.

[crikkett]

38. wait, doesn't Ambercrombie & Fitch promote wanton sexuality?

it seems that way, from the advertising I've seen. isn't that inherently anti-fundamentalist religion?

wouldn't then the hiring manager be doing herself and the young girl a favor by not allowing what was sure to be a conflict to take place?

the same way you'd judge a wide-eyed born-again who brought her bible into the interview to be less than an ideal candidate for the job.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. What in the article suggested the young woman was

fundamentalist? Nothing. In actuality, a real fundamentalist of either faith would not work for AF at all. Especially the fundamentalist women. How would the hiring manager know that there would be 'conflict'? What nature of conflict do you suggest is inevitable?
Look. The President is a giant Christian Evangelical, who announces on one hand that he is devoted to the inequality of those he personally judges to be 'sinners'. We should have no rights, because of his faith. Well, The President and his wife do not follow the other rules of their faith at all. That faith teaches that Mrs Obama should remain silent in gatherings, her head covered, she should never ask questions of anyone but Barack, she should never, ever wear costly clothing or anything intended to draw attention to herself or her beauty. Those are the rules they are supposed to live by, according to their religion. Do they live by them? Or are they selective, trashing gay people while they personally sell all the AF clotings they wish, as it were?
Get real.

[LostinVA]

51. Exactly my point upthread n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

53. It is a pile of ravings

which will go unanswered, of course.

[Mariana]

97. Oh come on, don't you know ALL Muslims are fundamentalist?

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

190. I know of no Biblical injunction against costly or attractive clothing.

Even the Old Testament has a number of stories of women getting all decked out before embarking on an important task.

Paul did say that women should not ask questions during services, but ask their husbands afterward. However, there were practical reasons for that. Among many other things, men studied religion, before and after their bat mitzvahs. Women did not. I say that with no intent to defend Paul, whom I personally believe was an egomaniacal fanatic who deserves to be mocked or pitied. If he appeared in any other book, any reader would see he is not intended to be seen as a role model.

And, you really don't know what Barack or Michele Obama's faith tells them, if anything, so you don't know if they are being faithful to their faith (if any) or not. Politicians say a lot of things I would not take to the bank. What they really believe and what they say they believe about anything--especially religion--may be two very different things.


More importantly than any specific point, please don't paint all Christians as as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robeertson. All Christians do not believe that everything in the Bible--even everything in the New Testament was intended literally, or was intended to apply today. And not all Christians, even fundamentalists, believe homosexuality is a sin, or ever was. Or that they have any business deciding who is a sinner and who isn't.

[Bluenorthwest]

255. First Timothy 2:9

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

So I think that covers that. I left out the shamefacedness because it just sounds so bad. It mentions pearls. And as I said, costly array.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say 'all Christians'? The President says he is opposed to equality "because I am a Christian." If you have issue with that framing, take it up with the source. That is sort of my point. People shout I'm a Christian, so you better be good, but they have no idea what the book even says. They deny their own Scriptures, to make political points. They use their own Scriptures not as personal guide, but as social weapon.
Love the rationalizations about the rules for women. Funny gay folk do not get the same leeway. But not funny as in 'ha ha'. The other kind, as in 'this fish smells funny'.

[wookie72]

54. Not all hijab wearers are "fundamentalist"

(Nitpick alert: there are no such thing as "fundamentalist" Muslims. Fundamentalism refers to a specific branch of Christianity)

Muslim women wear the head scarf for a variety of reasons. Some wear it because they like the freedom it gives them from being objectified by men. Some just like the idea that they don't have to fall for the whole beauty trap. Some take it as a political statement, a sort of Muslim pride thing.

In other words, it was an assumption on the part of the manager, and in any case, the manager based their assumption not on the woman's ideology but on how it would look to other people. That's shameful.

[Bragi]

91. And many wear it because men tell them to do so

And when they wear it, they are showing the world that they agree with the cultural subservience of women to men,a common thread that runs through many of the world's *great* religions.

[wookie72]

93. Prove it. nt.

In any case, it has nothing to do with A&F being in the wrong here.

[Bragi]

96. You gotta be kidding

I sense you may actually believe that Islam does not preach that women must be subservient to men.

I suggest you are dead wrong on that. Like most religions, Islam is systemically mysogynist.

I personally find it offensive to have people's pathetic mysogynist views shoved in my face.

I wouldn't legislate against it, and I support the right of stupid people to flaunt their religion, but I also find it to be annoying and offensive, and wish they'd stop.

[wookie72]

102. No, i mean prove that a man *forced* the scarf on her.

You have every right to be offended. But you know what? That is all you can do. And frankly, it's not "shoving it in your face." It's a f*cking scarf. Grow up.

"Like most religions, Islam is systemically mysogynist." Well, my female minister would be surprised to hear that.

[Quantess]

138. If this were a burqa, I would agree with you.

I doubt any women would be wearing burqas if there wasn't intense pressure from their misogynistic culture, with a threat of violence.

However, this is about a headscarf.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. And many claim that they're all about women's rights.

When they really care more about hating muslims.

[Bragi]

139. Not me

While I do support women's rights, I am also hostile to all religions, which is my main reasons for not rushing to defend anyone wanting to exert their right to push their stupid and harmful religion in my face.

[jberryhill]

146. Why is your face so often that close to women's heads?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

147. I'm an astronaut.

[jberryhill]

145. Yeah, so, many women wear what men tell them to - with no religion at all

viz. Mel Gibson telling his estranged wife how to dress.

[No Elephants]

187. Yes, men have historically controlled most religions. And? Allow only wiccan women to work?

[No Elephants]

153. How about "She's an adult and capable of deciding for herself where it is okay for her to work, just

as you do?"

[Xipe Totec]

42. You have to admit, they look pretty strange

Unlike anything you'd ever see in the USA...

[wookie72]

55. Audrey Hepburn is always a welcome sight. nt

[friedgreentomatoes]

230. Unfortunately...

... the head scarves in the above pictures are not religious requirements that they women intended to wear to work, everyday. Without going into whether A&F is right or wrong, your post is strawman.

[Xipe Totec]

247. Strawman? On the contrary

It illustrates that the issue is religious intolerance. Nothing more, nothing less.

[cosmicone]

44. Anyone insisting on 15th century clothing

is not "hip" by definition.

[wookie72]

56. Yeah... these people were so uncool...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_T961o3r1ib8/S8b8QZex8pI/AAAAAAAAJCY/pExhEmhEJcA/s1600/Picture+1.png

[No Elephants]

165. A scarf is 15th Century? Who knew? Anyone who discriminates is not hip by definition..

[cosmicone]

213. The clothing has to go with the business' image ...

it is not discrimination, it is the job requirement. I wouldn't support a sikh in a similar situation either.

I am Indian-American but I don't expect to work as a doctor wearing a loincloth.

Another example would be "Hooters" which wants to present a certain image for its waitresses and males are not hired for that job but are hired in other capacities.

Having said that, A-F could have offered her another job in the organization if she insisted on wearing a hijab.

[madmom]

48. What about a young cute

Amish teen, would they let her work there?

http://amish.suite101.com/article.cfm/amish_kapps

[jberryhill]

52. She wore the scarf at an interview - Nothing indicates she intended to wear it on the job

I think most of the thread misses an important detail.

She wasn't hired because she wore it to the interview.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

134. It's not a fancy tie -- she doesn't wear it to impress anyone.

It's like an observant Jew wearing a yarmulke.

[jberryhill]

140. I realize that

I am simply suggesting that the facts cited in the story, so far as we know them, do not even address the question of whether it was her intention to wear it at the store if hired.

It could well be that she was wearing her best for the purpose of the interview.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

142. Here in NYC, I see Muslim women wearing it throughout the day.

It's part of their daily attire.

[jberryhill]

151. Yes, I think some perceptions are driven by where people live

I'm beginning to get the impression that some of the folks who think a hijab is unusual, just don't live in a cosmopolitan area.

There's nothing unusual about it in most cities.

[CBGLuthier]

57. My Religion Compels Me

to wear a hat that says "Go Fuck Yourself." I would like a job selling ice cream.

[Bragi]

85. I'd buy from you

I'd do so before I'd willingly buy anything from anyone shoving their supernatural beliefs in my face.

[No Elephants]

191. Google "reasonable accomodation."

[keroro gunsou]

59. sigh

the hijab is a much better look than the traditional burqa, it looks more fashionable and modern, at least it does to me.

so, what will they do with an employee in cancer treatment, who has lost their hair from the chemotherapy and wants to go the route of the headwrap?

personally, i think AF is dropping the ball big time, there is a potential untapped market in the more liberal muslim communities, they'd be stupid to piss them off before even trying to make an in-road into their market. the muslim community in my area is on the more liberal end the spectrum. most of the ladies i've met wear a hijab and no one seems to mind.

undue hardship my ass, they just don't want to deal with the screaming fundies and the teabagging xenophobes.

my idea of the all american brand is a brand that appeals to ALL americans, not the white christian one. i'd also like them to make some plus-sized clothing too... but that's another story.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. They already tried to banish an amputee for not meeting the "look policy"

And got their asses handed to them, I'm happy to note:

http://jezebel.com/5289492/abercrombie-banishes-girl-with-prosthetic-arm-to-storeroom-because-she-doesnt-fit-the-look-policy

..Just in case their racism, sexism, and general awfulness hasn't been enough to turn you away from Abercrombie & Fitch after all these years, here's another glimpse of the inner workings of the horrible store.

When I previously (and gleefully) wrote about the economic troubles that Abercrombie was having a few months back, I mentioned that my personal hatred for the store comes from the fact that one of the women I was in the intensive inpatient unit with during my treatment for anorexia was heavily recruited by the store just days before her hospitalization (she was incredibly underweight) because she had "the look" they wanted. Turns out that this horrific "look policy" doesn't just revolve around being stick-thin; according to Riam Dean, she was forced to work in the stockroom, as opposed to on the floor, at Abercrombie's London flagship store because her prosthetic arm didn't fit the company's attractiveness standards. You stay classy, Abercrombie!..

[BlueMTexpat]

60. Frankly, I don't have a problem with a salesperson or anyone else wearing a hijab

- or other head covering (turban, yarmulke) - or jewelry (cross, etc.), so long as the person who is wearing it has freely chosen to wear it, rather than being obliged to. If that person is a salesperson, I would be more concerned about their courtesy, their helpfulness and their general competence than their dress, so long as that dress is clean and suitable to the environment that they work in.

I would personally prefer that no one wear a burqa or ANY complete body covering from head to toe in public gatherings because I believe - sadly, in these crazy days - that there are legitimate public safety concerns for us all.

If A & F's lawyers really said that "allowing an employee to wear a hijab, or head scarf 'would have created an undue hardship' for the company's business," they are unenlightened nuts and so is A & F if that truly was the reason that this individual was denied employment.

Anyone who routinely - or otherwise - passes through major airport duty-free shops, or who even shops in or near a metropolitan area in the US, will have already encountered salespersons or other individuals in hijabs, turbans and the like. Airport duty-free shops and boutiques at least do a booming business. We are simply a multi-ethnic global society and the sooner that people realize that and that it is something that is genuinely interesting, enriching and educational, the better.

As for the hijab, I personally think that it can be - and is on some women, at least - quite attractive. It is certainly a great thing to have on a bad hair day and I am surprised, on that basis alone, that more of us women haven't chosen to wear one from time to time. If I choose to wear one, and people choose to infer something about me as a result, they will find that they are completely off-base. And that's THEIR problem, not mine.

[Lightning Count]

61. When you work for A&F you are considered a "floor model."

And they tell their models what to wear.

[LostinVA]

83. She isn't refusing to wear their clothing

If she was, that would be different.

[Lightning Count]

90. If you're a runway model and decide to change the outfit in anyway what happens to you?

You cease being a runway model.

[No Elephants]

202. Maybe not, if the change is dictated by your religion and the employer is subject to the law of

reasonable accomodation. Then the issue becomes whether it is unreasonable to expect the employer to accommodate the change. See Reply 19. Also http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-30-06.cfm

[friedgreentomatoes]

232. Part of their "attire"...

.. is probably "no headscarves" (or yarmulkes)... ?

[No Elephants]

195. So?

[mbperrin]

67. Misses my point. Who in the name of God is buying their overpriced crap

to start with?

[Exultant Democracy]

70. I think it is pretty unfair not to expect the company to have a dress code that fits their branding

It isn't like AF doesn't hire Muslims as a general rule.

[depakid]

71. Unfair or not, well established law requires reasonable accommodation for religion

[Bragi]

88. Reasonable accomodation?

For me, reasonable accommodation would be to give anyone wearing a religious display of any sort reasonable time to go home and change into some secular garb.

[depakid]

98. Then one would hope you had the sense to stay out of management

which is fine.

Not everyone is cut out for or would be happy in management and supervisory roles.

[Lightning Count]

92. Girls at Hooters wearing jilbabs? nt

[depakid]

100. Why not?

Also- see post #98

[Lightning Count]

101. So many reasons. nt

[depakid]

103. And none of them legal

[Lightning Count]

104. Strip club with girls wearing jilbabs? They can call it 72....

And sure the reasons are legal. You think models are hired on their wpm?

[depakid]

106. Could be

Chippendale's might have to accommodate for yarmulkes.

[Lightning Count]

107. The names for a Jewish Chippendale's are endless.

My point is that I believe they can do this based on the fact that they list them as "models." I remember well from when I use to work there. You were also required to buy new clothes each season so you are always wearing the latest fashion.

[depakid]

108. They will lose this case

and worse, suffer bad PR in the process.

Better to settle quick & quiet.

[Lightning Count]

109. Bet you a coke they won't lose if they take it to trial.

May decide to settle though just to not pay attorney fees.

[riderinthestorm]

152. A & F calls their sales employees "models".

I hate to say it but it's been a consistent store policy that the sales floor staff are models, and that they are part of their advertising. They are given an outfit to wear and as the "model", they aren't able to change that.

A & F's branding is all about sex and sexy young things marketing their stuff. They haven't tried to be anything different and I'm not sure a young woman in hijab (which is a huge marker for "modesty" in Islam) would fit their "marketing plan".

While I agree they deserve to be sued, and they deserve to be taken to the cleaners, and they deserve all the bad PR they are going to get from this, I don't believe the case is as clear-cut as we may want it to be.

The sales staff is/has been/continues to be classified as models and I'm guessing this is where A & F gets away with this kind of religious discrimination.

[depakid]

204. And I've seen thousands of businesses call employees "independent contractors"

They lose too.

[riderinthestorm]

207. I bet A & F goes the Disney route and gets off.

Disney claims it's employees are actors and thus their costumes are part of the job, no deviations. They've been unsuccessfully sued several times because actors (and models) are hired to meet specific criteria that oftentimes is discriminatory.

From what I understand from talking to my daughter's friend who works there, there are two tiers of employees at A & F. The "models" who are on the sales floor and the workers who stock the shelves (and are not allowed to "assist" customers since they aren't "models" and aren't dressed by the managers for that day).

I'm wondering if the girl applied for the "model" job.

It's all bogus, I agree with you. But Disney and other strongly "branded" retail outfits can and do get away with it from what I can see. A & F sells sex and sexy clothes. They make no bones about it. The hijab is a marker for "modesty".

Like you pointed out upthread, they're losing a ton of good will with the (growing) Islamic demographic with this.

[depakid]

212. Not a chance

A retail store clerk ain't working at Disneyland, no matter what the store wants to believe about itself.

The operative word in this case is "pretence."

Here's the basic standard:

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies

Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

[riderinthestorm]

216. Shrug. Honestly, I believe A & F SHOULD lose.

But I'm not sure they will. If Disney can get away with calling even their most menial labor staff "actors" (who aren't even remotely part of the "entertainment"), the precedent is already in place for calling an A & F store employee, who certainly is outfitted in their clothes while working, a "model" and having the same strict work clothes rules.

That's what's interesting about this. There are a fair few retail stores that fall into this category (Hooters was mentioned upthread) and as the Islamic demographic grows, this will come up again.

[No Elephants]

218. Disney made 7 different attempts at reasonable accommodation and still hasn't gotten off.

AF made zero attempts.

Part of the holding in the Disney case was that the plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies. So, her next step, if she chooses to take it, is to file with the EEOC. It's arguable nothing else the court said really matters.

[No Elephants]

233. She did not apply for a sales position. Besides, AF has two kinds of sales reps.

[No Elephants]

221. So? Why can't a woman wear the latest fashions AND a head scarf? Happens every day, all over the

US and the rest of the world.

[Xithras]

115. A friend of my daughter was fired from A&F last month for having fingernails that were too long.

She went to work after having a manicure done, with some fake fingernails. Her boss immediately noticed the longer nails, and told her that the "Look Policy" required that nails be no more than a quarter inch past the fingertip, so she'd have to go home until the nails were removed. She went back to her manicurist and got them trimmed. When she walked back into work the next day, her manager immediately walked over, asked to see her hand, and stuck a ruler tip under her fingernail. They were still too long (barely, maybe a 16th of an inch), so he fired her on the spot for returning to work while still in violation of the "Look Policy".

I was blown away when she told me about it, so I looked it up. The policy gives them an incredible amount of power over the appearance of their employees, and an employee can be dismissed for things like wearing the wrong shade of foundation, or the wrong toenail polish color. Heck, you aren't even allowed to wear BLACK clothing.

[krabigirl]

196. no wonder I hate that store. horrid.

[entanglement]

119. A&F is infamous for racism. They were fined millions for making Black workers use back entrances

to their stores and never appear in the "front" of the store. That's just one instance of numerous violations of non-discrimination laws by A&F.

[totodeinhere]

126. A lot of people will not shop at a store if one of the clerks is wearing a headscarf.

It is a bigoted attitude to have, but many have it. But the question is, should this company be forced to lose business just so that this woman can wear a headscarf? It's a tough question. I can sympathize with the religious freedom argument, but I think it can be taken too far.

However, if she wore the scarf to her job interview, but agreed to take it off while on the job, then I don't see a problem.

And let me raise another point. Devout Sikhs carry knives with them. If you don't believe me just Google it. It is a tenant of their religion. Should they be allowed to carry knives on the job? Would denying that right be violating their religious freedom? Or is it reasonable for a company to ban knives regardless of the tenants of that religion? As I said, the religious freedom argument can be taken too far.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

127. Lots of people are bigoted against African-Americans.

So stores shouldn't have black employees, right?

And asking her to take off her scarf is like asking a Jew to take off his yarmulke. It's a religious object, not a way to impress the interviewer.

And the Sikh analogy is just stupid -- weapons are not allowed in the store for safety/legal reasons, just like Rastafarians wouldn't be allowed to smoke weed in the store. BTW, it's "tenet."

[totodeinhere]

128. Sorry for the typo. But whether weapons are allowed in stores or not, nevertheless the religious

freedom of Sikhs is being violated if they are not allowed to bring knives with them. And besides that, in some states it is indeed legal to possess a gun in public, so why not a knife?

And your analogy about blacks is comparing apples and oranges. Denying employment to blacks would be racism. But at best denying religious freedom on the job is bigotry, not racism. Islam is a religion practiced by all races including whites.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

132. Reasonable accomodation of religion doesn't extend to weapons.

There's also the safety issue, which does not at all apply to a woman wearing a hijab.

I mentioned black employees because you said:

It is a bigoted attitude to have, but many have it.

So according to your logic, stores should cater to their customers' bigoted beliefs. Bigotry is a wide net that can encompass racism, sexism, anti-religious feelings, etc., so it's an umbrella term.

[jberryhill]

159. Actually, in some circumstances it has been

If you are not familiar with Sikhism, Google "kirpan"

http://sikhcoalition.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/eeoc-settles-case-protecting-sikh-employees-right-to-wear-kirpan-at-work/

EEOC settles case protecting Sikh employee’s right to wear kirpan at work

----

A similar result was reached in Canada relative to Sikhs attending the Olympics and wearing kirpans.

[No Elephants]

206. Does religiion require Sikhs to have theiri knives with them at all times in public?

If not, the knife for a sikh may be more like wearing a cross is for a Christian (optional) than it is like wearing a scarf for some Muslim women.

[X_Digger]

211. Yes, it does.

It doesn't have to be a full-sized knife, nor even have to be able to be wielded. Some women use jewelry that includes the kirpan, like a brooch or hair barrette.

[jberryhill]

160. This may come as a surprise, but

Yes, Sikhs have succeeded in reasonable accommodation cases in specific relation to kirpans.

The kirpan is ceremonial, and using it AS a weapon would be a breach of its purpose.

http://sikhcoalition.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/eeoc-settles-case-protecting-sikh-employees-right-to-wear-kirpan-at-work/

The EEOC had charged that the nursing home violated federal law when it refused to allow a Sikh employee to wear a religious article while at work. Baljit Bhandal wears a small kirpan (ceremonial dagger or sword) as an article of her faith as a baptized Sikh. Even after receiving literature explaining that the kirpan is a religious article and not a weapon, ManorCare told Bhandal that wearing her kirpan at work violated the company policy against “weapons” in the workplace. She lost her job for not complying with their instruction to remove her kirpan.

[No Elephants]

222. The intent of equal opportunity employment laws is NOT to ensure

that the preferences of bigoted customers rule the day.

[wookie72]

155. Interesting take on the issue.

http://www.pktaylor.com/pksblog/2005/12/on-feminism-and-hijab.html

[taught_me_patience]

161. I support A and F on this

A reasonable accomodation would be to allow her 10 minute breaks to pray. She can wear her hijab before and after work.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

166. That's not how a hijab works, and it has nothing to do with prayer breaks.

It's like telling a Jew to take off his yarmulke while at work.

[Quantess]

170. And what will happen if the Jewish man takes off his yarmulke at work?

Will lightning strike him?
What would happen if the boss makes the Christian lady take off her cross pendant, or at least hide it under her clothes? Armageddon, I'm sure.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

171. It's called religious freedom.

Maybe you should look it up.

[Quantess]

179. Sorry, I can't help but snicker at religious people and their follies.

God will smite them for daring to momentarily taking off their religious garb. I wish the non-religious would laugh at religious people's superstitious customs more often.

It will be interesting to see the verdict. In my novice opinion, I would say that an employer has the right to enforce a dress code while the employee is at work, as long as one religion is not favored, or discriminated against. Of course, they can knock themselves out when they're not at work. These are just my opinions, of course.

Where does one draw the line between a cult and a religion? Does the employer have to allow members of a local cult wear their own religious symbol, as well, even if it is a silly pointy hat?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

180. I'm not remotely religious, but I do respect the Constitution.

Where does one draw the line between a cult and a religion? Does the employer have to allow members of a local cult wear their own religious symbol, as well, even if it is a silly pointy hat?

Islam has been around for a very long time. It's a heavily established religion. Still-existing cults have not been around for the same period (Scientology, for an example).

The fact that you think some religious garb is goofy is enough to warrant discrimination is quite sad, actually.

[Quantess]

223. Having a dress code at work does not equal discrimination.

I don't actually even care that much about this issue, but I do feel the need to defend myself against your accusation that I would warrant discrimination against any religion. I'm just saying they should have the right to tell her not to wear the headscarf at work.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

243. Their dress code in this case runs afoul of federal law.

A religious head covering that doesn't cause undue hardship on the employer is an exemption to their dress code. And no matter how you cut it, wanting her to remove her headscarf at work is discrimination.

And in case you missed it, the interviewer asked if she was a Muslim, which is illegal. But like you said, you don't care about this issue, right?

[No Elephants]

192. And I can't help snorting at people who are oblivious to the reality that

atheism is as much a matter of faith (or superstition, if you prefer) as is theism.

You said you had read all the replies to Post #17. If so, then you certainly read Reply 19, then? Reply 19 tells us: (a) There is law that applies here, so your personal opinions are beside the point. (b) Discrimination is not the legal standard that applies here. (c) The legal standard that applies here is "reasonable accommodation." (d) Can you distinguish this scarf case from the yarmulke case described in Reply 19?

Btw, I don't know of any Muslims who believe God will smite them if they remove their head covering or Jews who believe that about removing their yarmulkes.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

197. Reminds me of fundies against gay marriage.

It all boils down to the "ick factor" and trying to use that as a legal basis for discrimination.

[riderinthestorm]

208. Atheism is not a faith. Nice try at trying to derail the convo though. nt

[No Elephants]

215. Play any semantic game you will, belief in a higher power is only the flip side

of the opposite belief, that a higher power definitely does not exist. Both are matters of beliefs, not facts.

And, since the only issue presented by the OP is one of employment law, not of the existence or non-existence of a higher power, the poster who said she has to snicker at people who believe in God and unfairly characterized various beliefs was the one derailing the discussion.

Nice try at a credible post, though. Then again, maybe not even a nice try.

[riderinthestorm]

217. Won't even try. You're dead wrong. Take your argument to the Religion and Theology Forum

and see how long it lasts.

I'm not taking it up here and derailing the thread any further.

[No Elephants]

225. Good.

[Quantess]

227. No, and it isn't a game of semantics.

Not only is your assertion about atheism being a faith, or flip-side of religion not true, it is also off-topic.

And yes, as a non-committed, somewhat spiritual agnostic, I do snicker at people who rigidly cling to organized religions. Quietly, of course! I just wish they would keep their religion to themselves.

[Quantess]

226. I just read #19. Great, fine.

Sigh. I'm sorry I put in my .02 at all, because this topic is not nearly as interesting to me as it is to others.

But I do want to clarify, I'm not an atheist, I'm just a combination of agnostic and not-religious. And even if I were an atheist, which I am not, atheism is not a faith.

I don't really care if someone wears a headscarf, a yarmulke, a cross, or has tattoos and piercings. I just think that they shouldn't demand to wear their religious trappings at work, while tattooed people have to cover tattoos and pierced people must remove their piercings. If they don't believe god will be offended, then what's the problem with not wearing the religious trappings at work? Never mind, I don't care.

Anyway, I have officially lost interest in arguing this any further. I will accept whatever the court decides. Meanwhile, I feel grateful to be non-religious.

[Xithras]

203. You know, you bring up an interesting problem with this.

Muslim women wear hijabs because the Muslim faith requires women to be covered and dress modestly. A&F requires that its employees wear clothing that is consistent with the types of clothing they sell. If you've been into an A&F lately, you know that "demure", "covered", and "modesty" aren't even in the vocabulary of their clothing designers...it's all very "hip" and revealing.

Which brings up a good question. If she's wearing a hijab to comply with her religions mandate to dress modestly, how was she planning on accomodating the rest of her outfit to the A&F "Look Policy", which all but requires her to dress in revealing, body contoured clothing?

[No Elephants]

209. AF offers many "looks" that are not sexy, but simply "preppy" or casual.

http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category1_10051_10901_13061_-1_12203

http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category1_10051_10901_12843_-1_12203

http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category1_10051_10901_12282_-1_12203

[riderinthestorm]

210. But that's not their marketing. Their marketing is slutty.

And if these people are being hired as "models", they are part of the advertising plan.

[No Elephants]

231. First, that is a different point entirely from the one to which I was responding, which was

" A&F requires that its employees wear clothing that is consistent with the types of clothing they sell." So, I replied accordingly.


Second,, marketing is one thing. What their sales personnel actually wear is another. I see ads when men are shirtless, but I have not seen a shirtless salesman yet. Is every single one of their sales "models" dressed "slutty?" Do you know?

Third, she doesn't seem to have applied as a "model, or even an ordinary sales rep, so why are you going there?

"The federal agency said the Milpitas teenager, who was not identified, applied in March 2008 for a job stocking merchandise at the Abercrombie Kids store. She said she wore a colorful hijab that matched her outfit.

The manager asked her if she was Muslim, then marked "not Abercrombie look" on her interview form, the agency said."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/01/BATJ1F7BVC.DTL#ixzz0yQeUlaaT

[riderinthestorm]

253. Yes, human, shirtless male models standing in front of the store does happen at A&F

Are all their models dressed "slutty"? Yes, in my opinion. I've been there to shop with my 21 and 13 year old girls and can testify that every time I've been in there, that's definitely the common factor for the store personnel. I'm not a prude either, I've lived all over the world including a year on Bondi Beach in Australia, famous for it's topless bathing. 90% of the Japanese tourists visiting there that year have photos of my topless 36C self, in a thong no less.

You, nor I have any idea what position this woman exactly applied for. For most people working in retail, stocking shelves IS the entire job even if they've been labelled "sales associate". Does the agency truly understand A&F's marketing and their tiered employee structure that delineates between "models" or "sales rep" or "stockers", or have they deliberately been vague about what exactly she applied for. Of course if I were prosecuting this case, I'd also lump everyone together, to blur the lines.

And while I may be a 38D now, this 50 year old will never get hired at Hooters since I also, at this stage of the game, don't have the "Hooters look" anymore either (young, twenty-ish, no stretch marks or serious wrinkling...). While I may have been a good waitress decades ago, if the decision on who gets the job came down to the young 22 year old (with just as much experience as I - 4 years in college) and with a better figure vs my middle-aged 50 year old saggy self, it's a no-brainer that Hooters - which has a marketing strategy built on that type of model - will choose the 22 year old.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

239. The equal employment laws do not cover hypocrisy.

How she balances a Hijab versus contoured clothing in her own mind is, unfortunately, not our business. As long as her restrictions don't push the required accommodation past the "reasonable" limit she can insist on the Hijab and run around in a bikini. In other words, the court isn't going to discern how "good" of a Muslim she actually is. That's not to say pictures of her pole dancing on the weekends couldn't influence a jury. The law is pretty clear on "reasonable accommodation" - especially with something as mundane as a scarf.

She wouldn't be the first religious hypocrite. See: shellfish versus homosexuality.

[Devil Child]

181. Don't bring your religion to the workplace.

If you want to express your faith do so at home or your church/mosque/temple.

[No Elephants]

186. You're saying "Don't work while being a woman whose religion

requires she wear a scarf in public at all times, or a man whose religion requires he wear a yarmulke in public at all times."

Why can't these people work? Seeing a head covering is so offensive to you? Why? And which other parts of the Civil Rights laws would you repeal?

[Devil Child]

189. Thank you for responding

I take no offense in seing a head covering and would never support legislation against a wearing of head coverings in public like what has recently happened in France. I just don't believe in forcing business to accomodate someone's religious beliefs. Now if A&F specifically denied her consideration for employment because she was muslim as opposed to refusing to remove a scarf I would be more supportive.

[No Elephants]

199. You're making an artificial distinction, like saying you don't object

to observant Jewish men, only to circumcised men.

[X_Digger]

182. I can see both sides..

On one hand, employers may not discriminate on the basis of religion. Sikhs can wear their kirpans, Jewish men their yarmulkes, anabaptists can wear those little hair thingies. That is a reasonable accommodation for employers to make, as long as it has minimal impact on the employee's work.

However, when it's part of the core of an employee's work, it may not be reasonable to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs. The EEOC sometimes uses Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make that determination. "Bona fide occupational qualifications" is the term used for those legitimate exceptions. For example, a clothing manufacturer may advertise for a male model for a catalog and discriminate against women models. A Catholic school may require that all faculty be members of a certain denomination, and discriminate against those who are not.

My guess is that it's going to come down to how much of an AF associate's job revolves around being a model and how much they're a sales associate. It would be a reasonable accommodation for a sales associate, but potentially not so much for a model.

Never having set foot in that store, nor known anyone who works there, I couldn't say.

[MikeW]

185. good luck feds ... you'll lose AF has every right to dictate what their employees wear at work

on their time, dime and property.

[No Elephants]

200. Please see Reply # 19. Also

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-30-06.cfm

[depakid]

201. Guess you missed the case cited in post 19

Not that corporate accountability to the rule of law means much to some people any more- and we can certainly thank the last two administrations for that unfortunate development.

[MikeW]

219. different circumstances

There is no informatino in that case if the store chain had a dress code policy.

THIS IS THE SAME AS THE DISNEY CASE .... lets see if you 2 can follow.

IF YOU TAKE A JOB THAT HAS A DRESS CODE POLICY YOU KNEW IT WHEN YOU SIGNED ON AND ACCEPTED THE POSITION!!!!

Automatic FAIL!!!!!

IF AF HAS A WRITEN DRESS CODE POLICY AND THE EMPLOYEE IS PRESENTED WITH IT AT HIRING ITS GAME OVER FOR THE FEDS.

[No Elephants]

220. Please see Reply 218.

And there are other ways in which this is not like Disney

Disney has a characters and a make-believe ambience. AF sells contemporary clothing for modern Americans in real life, not in fantasy land or tomorrow land.

Nothing says a woman can't possibly wear AF's clothing if she wears a head scarf, too.

[depakid]

224. As the old lawyers' saying goes:

If you can't pound the facts, pound the law, if you can't pound the law pound the table shout loudly about the morality of your client's position.

The case is a total loser- as are your arguments (which hearken back to another era).

[Judi Lynn]

188. If the "Good Lord" had meant for us to have any visual privacy among ourselves,

we wouldn't have been born nekkid.

If you're in public, you're fair game to any one, EVERY one who wanders by. If you can't stand the heat, just try to stay out of sight.

One way or another, eventually someone must get a law passed to shave heads so people can't hide behind long hair, and prohibit sun glasses, also. It's the right thing to do.

While we're at it, do away with curtains at every one's windows. What DO we have to hide, after all?

Anyone who prefers distance from strangers must be up to no good. It's rejection of our need to probe, penetrate, inspect every pore on their faces, to lay them completely open to our leisurely review, assessment.

Let's put them in jail if they even TRY to deflect our gaze. Let's get this all straightened out right now.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

205. Maybe if the burka was made to look like the U.S. flag then it would be all right.

[AlphaCentauri]

238. I see why I didn't get that office job

I did show up for the job interview wearing a sombrero and boots..... can I sue the company?

[Angleae]

242. Feds will very likely lose.

All A&F have to say is that there were better qualified applicants than her. Considering the current economy and the fact that she was applying for her first job this isn't exactly hard to believe.

[defendandprotect]

244. BS . . . NO ONE'S PRACTICE OF RELIGION depends on having their religious symbols

on display in public -- !!

[Codeine]

252. Holy shit.

defendandprotect posted something with which I agree! :wow: :yoiks:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

249. Why is it...

We are expected to have a bottomless well of tolerance and compromise for the religious practices of those who have zero tolerance and compromise for others?

Just for the sake of wallowing in stereotypes, this being A&F, chances are a large number of those this woman would be working with and serving will be gay men - would she have a problem with that? If her values are a muslim are that inflexible and beyond reproach the many abominations to allah one would undoubtedly come in contact with in A&F would have to be an issue.

The company my girlfriend works for had some very ugly office situations during the Proposition 8 nonsense where religious employees were unable to keep their thoughts on the subject to themselves. I would be extremely reluctant to hire anybody who was outwardly religious - given the current charged climate in which religious zealots seem to feel particularly empowered they seem like hostile workplace or discrimination lawsuits looking for a place to happen.

[X_Digger]

251. Because that's the way tolerance works- it doesn't have to be reciprocal.

It's not up to us to judge who's going to be a 'good muslim' and try to guess what they might or might not find offense at.

Just like the freedom of expression protects speech you find despicable (KKK marches), the freedom of religion protects religions whose precepts you may not personally endorse.

[dugaresa]

250. personally i think she went there looking to create a problem

let's be honest, if you are the kind of gal who wants to wear your headscarf in public to display your faith and the headscarf itself is rooted in modesty, etc. Why the hell would you go to work at Abercrombie and Fitch? They are known for their sexually explicit marketing. Seems like a good way to create a problem.

Why not go to work at a library? or a store that sells baby clothes where modesty and piety would be more a part of the atmosphere?

As for displaying your religious beliefs on your sleeve, where do we draw the line? If it is okay to display your faith, why not letting people live their faith? Where does that line get drawn. When a religious pharmacist, of any religion, decides to withhold birth control? Or perhaps gives a stern lecture to a young unmarried person about buying condoms? Is that ok? Why isn't it?

If this woman is allowed to work at A&F, would it be okay for her to give young women buying low cut tops a condescending look? or lecture them on modesty? Where is A & F's right to just worry about their bottom line?

I practice a particular religion but don't feel compelled to let anyone know. It is personal to me.

[MellowDem]

254. As a legal issue....

it will be interesting to hear what the court has to say on this. Companies can and do make their employees dress a certain way. You can be fired for not conforming and that is not illegal per se. In this case, a clothing store that is all about trendy fashions will of course have very specific (and maybe even obnoxious) dress codes. When I worked retail, that is how it was.

A&F's motive is profit here, not bigotry. They have a very specific image they want to sell, one that won't conform to other religious dress codes. So the question is, should A&F be forced to hire people that won't conform to their dress code for religious reasons? I don't think the First Amendment covers that, at least personally.

I think those automatically thinking religious discrimination are missing the point of what's going on here. The question really is about how far a company can go in enforcing its dress code without being deemed illegally discriminatory. Where I worked in retail, you could not have lots of piercings or colored hair. That is a discriminatory policy in a way, but it is perfectly legal. If that is legal, then this should be as well IMHO. Saying you can't have a head covering of any kind, hat, hijab, whatever, is enforcing a dress code, not discriminating based on religion. I have never been in an A&F or any other clothing retail store before where the employees were allowed to wear a head covering of any sort. Making an exception for religion seems silly and rather discriminatory in itself, as if religion trumps other rights of what to wear.