• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I wonder how many criticizing this decision would disagree if an employer banned wearing crosses.
 
Because there are idiots that want to restrict their freedom.
Employees have rights protected by law because history shows employers are not always reasonable, which negatively impacts society as a whole.
 
Why cant a private employer ban headgear?

Why should the employer band head dress of any kind as long as it doesn't present a safety hazard or take away from the professional atmosphere?

Wearing a baseball cap in a law firm doesn't make you look professional. Save that for the sports bar or the baseball field.

Wearing a head dress be it a turban or hijab as part of your regular attire for cultural or religious reasons doesn't justify not hiring a person as long as wearing such is in keeping with your company's dress code which in most cases boils down to professionalism, safety and uniformity. Although company dress codes aren't for the employee's comfort, the one exception has always been "religious tolerance". That's where Abercrombie & Fitch missed the mark.
 
You are allowed to ask ask just about anything. What you are not allowed is to discriminate.

no you cannot you have no idea what you are talking about.

What you can't ask: What religion do you practice?
What you can't ask: Which religious holidays do you observe?

Why? Isn't that the natural conclusion of a company that thinks that Muslim women wearing a scarf do not represent the image of the company?

Nope that wearing any kind of head dress at work does not represent the image that the company.
 
Why is honesty a bad thing?

Because honesty by an employer often becomes fodder for a ****bag attorney to claim discrimination, that's why. In order for there to simply be honesty it needs to be on both sides. But more and more that is not the case. Case in point the pizza joint that was such a big deal a while back. A dishonest reporter asked a leading question fishing for the "right" response to build a story, and next thing you know the LBGT idiots get their collective panties in a wad. The guy asking the question wasn't even gay. The whole thing was a setup by a dishonest person and taken advantage of by a whole group of dishonest people. Surely by now our leaders have taught us that there is no longer any value in honesty...
 
This went to the Supreme Court.....?

And of course Thomas dissented.
 
Your argument against the notion that the dress code is unreasonably restrictive is to give unreasonable examples that could be very easily restricted? I don't think you grasp the issues at play here.

That doesn't even make sense... if those examples sued and won they would no longer be restricted and that is the point of this debate. That said, they are not unreasonable examples... they are fine examples of people not wanting to wear or dress the way that the employer wants them to dress. There is nothing to grasp. It is just that simple.

You assert this without evidence. I dismiss it without evidence.

There is no evidence for what is reasonable... talk about not grasping the concept. ;)
 
Because you live in a society with other people and you having money and owning things doesn't give you the right to control anything about anyone else.

This is wrong on so many levels...

Having money and owning things? Irrelevant. It is also a Red Herring. It is also an Appeal to Poverty.

Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Poverty

Racking up two logical fallacies and an irrelevant point in five words is pretty amazing.

That said, yes, businesses do have the right to control what their employees. They can have uniforms, set hours, breaks, etc. A smart employer would never tell the potential employee why they did not get the job though... they would just say, sorry, a more qualified candidate got the position and thank you for applying and good luck. No lawsuit. No undermining of the business. Done.
 
If one is attempting to mask discrimination by lack of honesty, is in my view dishonest.

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 wonder how many criticizing this decision would disagree if an employer banned wearing crosses.

a hijab is a specific item of clothing.... not a symbol that can be put on many different items ( hats, t-shirts, necklaces, tattoos, etc)

a better analogy would be Mormon Temple garments... or a yarmulke(Kippah)... or something like that.
 
a hijab is a specific item of clothing.... not a symbol that can be put on many different items ( hats, t-shirts, necklaces, tattoos, etc)

a better analogy would be Mormon Temple garments... or a yarmulke(Kippah)... or something like that.

Ya think?

In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, one of the most well-known student rights’ cases it has considered, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear a black armband to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Since then, courts have continued to hold that students generally have a right to express political views through their clothing.

This can include, for example, wearing clothing that endorses or criticizes a politician or, as in more recent cases, wearing t-shirts supporting or opposing gay rights.

Additionally, schools cannot prohibit students from wearing clothes that are in observance of their religion, such as a Muslim wearing a hijab in school.


While most Muslim women wear the hijab for religious reasons, there are other Arab or Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab as an expression of their cultural identity.

By wearing the hijab, Muslim women hope to communicate their political and social alliance with their country of origin and challenge the prejudice of Western discourses towards the Arabic-speaking world (Zayzafoon, 2005). In many cases, the wearing of the hijab is also used to challenge Western feminist discourses which present hijab-wearing women as oppressed or silenced.

Women > Veiling > What is the Hijab and Why do Women Wear it? - Arabs in America

This might have something to do with the decision in this case. And the Supreme Court didn't state that AF was violating this girls rights. It was a warning ticket.

Just sayin... :shrug:
 
Ya think?






This might have something to do with the decision in this case. And the Supreme Court didn't state that AF was violating this girls rights. It was a warning ticket.

Just sayin... :shrug:

eh.. i'm not sure Tinker is relevant ( due the difference in plaintiffs..students in public school versus potential employee with a private firm)

.... but I do agree this was a warning ticket of sorts.

A&F should be smarter with their employee rejections... and train their managers accordingly.
 
a hijab is a specific item of clothing.... not a symbol that can be put on many different items ( hats, t-shirts, necklaces, tattoos, etc)

a better analogy would be Mormon Temple garments... or a yarmulke(Kippah)... or something like that.

I would have mentioned yarmulkes but too many hate Jews to appeal to their sense of empathy.
 
So it is not honesty that is bad but discrimination and you are OK with masking that with obfuscation and misrepresentation.

In this sue-happy country of ours, I'm okay with keeping your mouth shut. I mean, if an applicant has questionable personal hygiene habits is it obfuscation or misrepresentation to refrain from saying, "Sorry, Sir, but we cant hire you because you stink"? That's not to say I advocate breaking federal law, but if you're going to do it you should at least avoid being a moron by not making the applicant's case for him.
 
eh.. i'm not sure Tinker is relevant ( due the difference in plaintiffs..students in public school versus potential employee with a private firm)

.... but I do agree this was a warning ticket of sorts.

A&F should be smarter with their employee rejections... and train their managers accordingly.

I hear ya, but you said:.

Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post

a hijab is a specific item of clothing.... not a symbol that can be put on many different items ( hats, t-shirts, necklaces, tattoos, etc)

a better analogy would be Mormon Temple garments... or a yarmulke(Kippah)... or something like that.

Then I said...
In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, one of the most well-known student rights’ cases it has considered, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear a black armband to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Since then, courts have continued to hold that students generally have a right to express political views through their clothing.

This can include, for example, wearing clothing that endorses or criticizes a politician or, as in more recent cases, wearing t-shirts supporting or opposing gay rights.

Additionally, schools cannot prohibit students from wearing clothes that are in observance of their religion, such as a Muslim wearing a hijab in school.

While most Muslim women wear the hijab for religious reasons, there are other Arab or Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab as an expression of their cultural identity.

By wearing the hijab, Muslim women hope to communicate their political and social alliance with their country of origin and challenge the prejudice of Western discourses towards the Arabic-speaking world (Zayzafoon, 2005). In many cases, the wearing of the hijab is also used to challenge Western feminist discourses which present hijab-wearing women as oppressed or silenced.

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