Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 123

Thread: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I hear ya, but you said:.



    Then I said...


    The scarf and hijab aren't just a piece of clothing to those who wear them. Now, I don't really care how this all turns out. But what I'm pointing out is "relevant". You don't even have to read between the lines to see where the SC is coming from...right or wrong. Ya dig?
    ahh...I think I confused you.. or you confused me... maybe both
    .. I meant that it's a specific piece of clothing..IE, it's a specific type of headwear....I wasn't trying to say it had no meaning, or a specific meaning... the symbolism of the hijab was irrelevent

    in comparison wearing a cross can be a jewelry cross hanging from a necklace.. or an earring.. or a cross on t-shirt.. or a ballcap... or a cross on a skirt.... or even a tattoo

    regardless of any symbolism, "wearing a cross" can come in many many forms... "wearing a hijab" comes in exactly 1 form.


    the only reason i said i wasn't sure if Tinker was relevant is because that case is about students at a public school.... and this hijab case is about just a person applying for a job.

  2. #92
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,232

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    ahh...I think I confused you.. or you confused me... maybe both
    .. I meant that it's a specific piece of clothing..IE, it's a specific type of headwear....I wasn't trying to say it had no meaning, or a specific meaning... the symbolism of the hijab was irrelevent

    in comparison wearing a cross can be a jewelry cross hanging from a necklace.. or an earring.. or a cross on t-shirt.. or a ballcap... or a cross on a skirt.... or even a tattoo

    regardless of any symbolism, "wearing a cross" can come in many many forms... "wearing a hijab" comes in exactly 1 form.


    the only reason i said i wasn't sure if Tinker was relevant is because that case is about students at a public school.... and this hijab case is about just a person applying for a job.
    I dig what your saying. Tinker should have a broader reach with the SC . That's my point, really. It's a similar principle. But I'll look for some case law related to the workplace.

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I dig what your saying. Tinker should have a broader reach with the SC . That's my point, really. It's a similar principle. But I'll look for some case law related to the workplace.
    nah.. don't go all research-y on me... it's not that big a deal

    this all barely registers on my care-o-meter.

  4. #94
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    You don't have to accomodate nuttery you only have to make reasonable accomodation
    Setting a dress code irrespective of religious beliefs is not unreasonable. No religion should be allowed to dictate how private employees are to look at work. If the business says no headgear, no religious scarves. No necklaces, that means no crosses around the neck.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  5. #95
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,303

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Setting a dress code irrespective of religious beliefs is not unreasonable. No religion should be allowed to dictate how private employees are to look at work. If the business says no headgear, no religious scarves. No necklaces, that means no crosses around the neck.
    But no business should dictate how someone practices their religion and that should not be a choice someone has to make IF the accommodation is reasonable.

    And if it hasn't been pointed out, this case did NOT decide whether or not A&F were wrong to refuse the accommodation, only the question of whether or not she had to have actually requested an accommodation.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  6. #96
    Sage
    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Abilene Texas
    Last Seen
    06-07-17 @ 03:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,791

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    I don't think "honesty" is the word you're looking for...because there's nothing really dishonest about that statement.

    It might not be as specific as you would like, but it's not dishonest.

    personally, I don't give a reason for not hiring someone... if they ask, I simply tell them the job offer went to someone else.

    it sucks, but that's one of the cons of being in a sue-happy nation.

    i agree

    we send out a standard letter

    thanking the applicant for applying...saying the position was filled by someone else

    and that we will keep their application/resume in the active file for six months

    thats it....no reasons given
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  7. #97
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    I do agree with that. I don't know how the court concluded that there was no knowledge requirement. Alito's concurrence there demonstrated well that there should've been. It makes no sense that a business can be held liable without knowing beforehand that something was a religious item or practice and the other party not making them aware of it.
    First of all, ludin is wrong. It does not require an employer to read an applicant's mind. It requires the applicant/plaintiff to prove that the employers *motive* for not hiring them was a desire to avoid accommodating their belief/practice. A&F made it clear that their motive was to avoid such accommodation

    As far as knowledge goes, the court was clear - knowledge is not needed because the law does not require knowledge of the accommodation. All it requires is that the employer *believe* an accommodation would be needed and their refusal to hire be based on that belief.

    The disparate-treatment provision forbids employers to:
    (1) “fail . . . to hire” an applicant (2) “because of ” (3) “such
    individual’s . . . religion” (which includes his religious
    practice). Here, of course, Abercrombie (1) failed to hire
    Elauf. The parties concede that (if Elauf sincerely believes
    that her religion so requires) Elauf ’s wearing of a headscarf
    is (3) a “religious practice.” All that remains is
    whether she was not hired (2) “because of ” her religious
    practice
    It is significant that §2000e–2(a)(1) does not impose a
    knowledge requirement. As Abercrombie acknowledges,
    some antidiscrimination statutes do. For example, the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 defines discrimination to include an employer’s failure to make “reasonable
    accommodations to the known physical or mental
    limitations” of an applicant. §12112(b)(5)(A) (emphasis
    added). Title VII contains no such limitation.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #98
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Since I've never been in AF, I wonder whether it is a requirement that employees only wear clothing that is sold in AF. If so, that would be about the only way they could have won this case. Having a clothing store setting requirements for the clothing worn by employees does not seem unreasonable to me.
    It would not make a difference. Regardless of any policy, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for a religious practice. This requirement applies regardless of the policy or the reason for having the policy
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #99
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    I wonder if there has been any research on the potential impact wearing a head scarf has on retail sales performance.

  10. #100
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by CycloneWanderer View Post
    I wonder if there has been any research on the potential impact wearing a head scarf has on retail sales performance.
    It would not matter

    Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities

    5. Can an employer exclude someone from a position because of discriminatory customer preference?

    No. If an employer takes an action based on the discriminatory religious preferences of others, including customers, clients, or co-workers, the employer is unlawfully discriminating in employment based on religion. Customer preference is not a defense to a claim of discrimination.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •