• 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

Their dress code is unreasonably and unduly restrictive. That's the point. They are allowed, within reasonable limits, to determine a dress code. They do not have an unlimited right to do that.

no it wasn't. it was perfectly fine. not having someone wear head gear is a reasonable limit for a dress code.
they have the right to define what their employee's wear.

just like she can't wear a burka and expect to get a job. he conflicts with the brand and look of what the company is trying to produce.
this was a 100% wrong decision the part of the court.

not wearing headgear is a perfectly reasonable standard of dress.

next I guess I guess they will have to supply her with a prayer mat and a foot washing station since those are to you reasonable requests as well.
in which they are not. nor is it reasonable for her to take 5 breaks in a day.
 
Interesting. I don't allow hats, jewelry, baggy pants or footwear other than boots in my shop. Anyone I hire has to be able to represent my company to my customers, and that includes appropriate dress and cleanliness. It's an auto repair shop. I provide ripstop scrub shirts, gloves and fender covers. I expect my employees to be as clean as possible. I don't care if a necklace has a crucifix on it or not (I am Christian), it is a safety hazard working around equipment like brake lathes. No wedding rings either. They are a good way to lose a finger in this field. As the owner I expect my employees to dress in a way that fits our marketing. It's not about religion, it's about representing the employer's marketing.
 
A&F didn't really help themselves with a pretty dumb argument for their side, boiling down to "well, how are we supposed to know they are wearing a head scarf for religious reasons?" Maybe I'm not knowledge on recent fashion, but I never recall head scarfs being worn for reasons besides religion or related to religion (e.g. doing a show/play/etc. where a character is a Muslim woman).

Yes, you do. Think for a minute of women undergoing chemo who've lost their hair.
 
I've done hiring and the first thing you learn is never tell an applicant anything other than "Thanks for your interest. There were other, better qualified applicants."
Why is honesty a bad thing?
 
it also means that the business has to be able to read the persons brain before hand to know if it is a religious item or not. please tell me how any employer can do that.
That is why questions were invented.

AF went with a horrible defense. their defense is that we have a dress code policy that requires this look due to our brand that we have with the company.
wearing any kind of head gear would not support that brand and there is the possibility of financial loss.
So they were saying that Muslims should not wear their brand?
 
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.
 
Why is honesty a bad thing?

Honestly isn't a bad thing. It's not dishonest to tell people there were other, better qualified candidates, assuming you're attempting to hire the best qualified candidate. But getting sued and having to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars defending against a federal lawsuit through appeals to the Supreme Court is a bad thing, so if you're going to discriminate against someone for the manner in which they dress it would be advisable to keep your mouth shut.
 
But the job she applied for was that of a store "model". If you hire a model they should have to dress the way you want them to dress. That is the job.
 
I agree with Justice Thomas' dissent. The majority opinion cooks up a novel theory of intentional discrimination that is too broad.
 
I don't know which way I fall on this issue, but wanted to stop in to commentr on the fact that the a-hole CEO of AF looks like he has end-stage Garybuseyitis.
 
I don't know which way I fall on this issue, but wanted to stop in to commentr on the fact that the a-hole CEO of AF looks like he has end-stage Garybuseyitis.

IIRC, he's the same tool who said publicly that he didn't want ugly people wearing his store's clothes. He's kind of a prick.
 
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.

This quote from the article sums up the reasoning: "It means that if an employer thinks a potential employee needs a religious accommodation, than the employer needs to make a reasonable effort to accommodate; it can't reject the applicant and then plead ignorance, " he said.

It's not like head scarves worn by a woman need a lot of explaining. If they had any doubts why this woman wore a hajib to the interview, a simple question clears it up.
 
IIRC, he's the same tool who said publicly that he didn't want ugly people wearing his store's clothes. He's kind of a prick.

Yeah, same guy. And his desire was entirely ironic given his appearance:

101258962-AP090113016787r.530x298.jpg
 
That is why questions were invented.
your not allowed to ask those questions in an interview they are considered bias and lead to possible discrimination suits.
just like you can't ask how old someone is or if they are married or have kids or anything else.

So they were saying that Muslims should not wear their brand?

wow strawman much I guess so.
 
Why do I, as an employer, have to accommodate anyones religious nuttery? They came to my place of business looking for work, they follow my dress code. If they don't like it, they can work for you.

So you don't believe in the free exercise of religion? Do you believe that an employer has the right to tell someone they can't wear a cross necklace or a yamika?
 
Really? Email Tom Brady and tell him he can play Monday Night Football with the gear but instead of the uniform just wear a t-shirt from home.

How about telling fast food worker that they do not have to wear the uniform/shirt provided? A waiter at a restaurant requiring a tie can wear a belly showing shirt?

Really?

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.

not wearing headgear is a perfectly reasonable standard of dress.

You assert this without evidence. I dismiss it without evidence.
 
your not allowed to ask those questions in an interview they are considered bias and lead to possible discrimination suits.
You are allowed to ask ask just about anything. What you are not allowed is to discriminate.

wow strawman much I guess so.
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?
 
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.



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

IE you can't actually show how it is not reasonable to require people to not wear head gear.
so you lose by default.
 
Honestly isn't a bad thing. It's not dishonest to tell people there were other, better qualified candidates, assuming you're attempting to hire the best qualified candidate. But getting sued and having to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars defending against a federal lawsuit through appeals to the Supreme Court is a bad thing, so if you're going to discriminate against someone for the manner in which they dress it would be advisable to keep your mouth shut.
So it is not honesty that is bad but discrimination and you are OK with masking that with obfuscation and misrepresentation.
 
IE you can't actually show how it is not reasonable to require people to not wear head gear.
so you lose by default.

No, in this country it's the other way around. You have to show how it is reasonable to require people not to wear something.

Besides, I already did show how it wasn't reasonable. It doesn't affect their ability to do the job. Some people argued "branding" made it necessary, but I'm pretty sure that "no Muslims allowed" isn't an acceptable branding anyway. And, of course, are you also arguing that it's just fine to say that Jews can't wear a kippah on the job?
 
Back
Top Bottom