RE: A&F threads - Race/Ethnicity/Color - What Practices Are Discriminatory

[sudopod]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
hiring and firing;
compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
job advertisements;
recruitment;
testing;
use of company facilities;
training and apprenticeship programs;
fringe benefits;
pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
terms and conditions of employment.


Key Points to Remember
Title VII prohibits discrimination in hiring, termination, and other forms of discrimination, including in compensation, and "terms, conditions and privileges of employment".
Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who has either participated in and investigation or other proceeding investigating employment discrimination, or who has opposed discriminatory practices.
There are two theories for proving a claim of race discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact.
Under the disparate treatment theory, an individual must show that race played a role in the decisional process. An employer’s failure to offer a credible and supportable explanation for an employment decision can support a claim of race discrimination under a disparate treatment theory.
Even when the employer relies upon a racially-neutral selection criterion, an individual can establish a Title VII violation by showing that the criterion has a disparate impact on members of a particular racial group. A selection criterion that has a disparate impact is not automatically unlawful. The employer can justify the use of the criterion by demonstrating that the criterion is job-related and consistent with business necessity. However, the employer can still be liable if a reasonable less discriminatory alternative exists.

.....

Segregation and Classification of Employees

Title VII is violated where minority employees are segregated by physically isolating them from other employees or from customer contact. Title VII also prohibits assigning primarily minorities to predominately minority establishments or geographic areas. It is also illegal to exclude minorities from certain positions or to group or categorize employees or jobs so that certain jobs are generally held by minorities. Coding applications/resumes to designate an applicant's race, by either an employer or employment agency, constitutes evidence of discrimination where minorities are excluded from employment or from certain positions.

.....

More at: http://usfweb2.usf.edu/eoa/race.asp

[sudopod]

1. This post is in reference to the travesty that can be found here:

Hats and head coverings are prohibited while working at Abercrombie & Fitch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1377903

where a young Muslim woman working at the most stylish place on Earth, Abercrombie and Fitch, was put in the stock room to work since she wore hijab. They then backtracked and decided to fire her, a decision which came from HR-on-high. Far be it from me to question our gods of Corporate Conformity, but I'm pretty sure that based on a simple layman's reading of the law above, A&F is obviously in the wrong. Luckily, they can probably afford to pay damages from their copious income derived from selling thongs to preteens.

Whether Ms. Kahn can afford body guards on her remaining stock room worker salary is probably in doubt, however. This is unfortunate, considering the fact that she is now getting death threats from some of our knuckle-dragging fellow countrymen. She should be safe as long as she avoids veering too close to anyone wearing more than one flag-themed piece of apparel.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am as godless as a cat and have no warm feelings for the victim's religion. Never the less, this woman is protected by law and deserves to be able to live and work in peace.

[ZombieHorde]

4. You think she was fired because of her "Race/Ethnicity/Color"?

Seems like she was fired for breaking their appropriate attire rules.

[sudopod]

5. Don't read the article

post anyway

adivcedog.jpg

[ZombieHorde]

51. You're seeing ghosts. nt

[sudopod]

2. Kick

because kick.

[sudopod]

3. kick

[Sinistrous]

6. K&R

Thanks for the background info on this case.

[provis99]

7. the hijab is not a religious costume.

It is a piece of cultural clothing that is occasionally found in some countries.
So I don't see the argument for discrimination.

[sudopod]

8. Remember that time some bloviating internet guy knew more about your beliefs than you?

That was great.

[provis99]

9. It's not a religious costume.

Denying reality doesn't make it a religious costume.
Would you consider a two piece suit to be a religious costume? After all, it is commonly worn by men to Church.

And by the way, it's really crass to kick your own OP.

[sudopod]

10. You can tell the Pope that he's not infallible.

You'll get just as far. Your religion is what you believe it to be. You can have a doctrinal dispute with Ms. Kahn if you want, but that really doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned.

[onenote]

69. the law disagrees

So go change the law.

[NavyDem]

11. You can't wear a Hijab (or other religious clothing) in uniform

as part of the military either, except during religious ceremonies.

[sudopod]

12. The military keeps out the disabled too.

it isn't exactly a 1:1 correspondence with a clothing chain with respect to the law, no? ;)

[NavyDem]

15. Yes or no

An employer can institute or enforce a dress code? As per my example, it is a dress code.

[sudopod]

There are shades of grey there, you know. nt

[NavyDem]

19. Given your other post (with the article)

There are shades of gray. I have a dress code where I work now. I have to wear a button down shirt, tie and slacks. The only variance I can have is occassionally wearing a pullover polo style shirt. Doesn't bother me.

[sudopod]

17. double post nt

[onenote]

70. an employer with a dress code must make reasonable accommodations

for those whose sincerely held religious beliefs are inconsistent with the dress code. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Here are some examples:

1.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-18-09.cfm


2. 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.

[sudopod]

14. Incidentally, this looks like an example of Reagan-era nonsense.

According to this article, the rules were more relaxed before changes introduced in 1981:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/sikh-soldier-completes-us-army-training-with-turban-on-65640

"In 1981, the Army banned "conspicuous" religious articles of faith, including turbans and unshorn hair, for its service members.The ban was enacted despite a long history of Sikhs serving in the US military with their religious identity intact."

[NavyDem]

18. Interesting article

I'm surprised that the Army was so accomodating.

[sudopod]

20. They integrated first, too.

I wonder if the special dispensation for special forces working in Afghanistan with respect to facial hair are helping the Sikh's case along?

[NavyDem]

23. That very well could be.

If these personnel are working special forces, I think they have a very great latititude in dress. Most likely they would be trying to blend with the local population. Example for clarity: buzz cut and clean shaven stands out in every foreign country I've visited. I could pick out active duty with 100% accuracy based on style of dress and grooming.

[onenote]

74. federal law regarding military uniforms and religious apparel

10 USC § 774. Religious apparel: wearing while in uniform
How Current is This?
(a) General Rule.— Except as provided under subsection (b), a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member’s armed force.
(b) Exceptions.— The Secretary concerned may prohibit the wearing of an item of religious apparel—
(1) in circumstances with respect to which the Secretary determines that the wearing of the item would interfere with the performance of the member’s military duties; or
(2) if the Secretary determines, under regulations under subsection (c), that the item of apparel is not neat and conservative.
(c) Regulations.— The Secretary concerned shall prescribe regulations concerning the wearing of religious apparel by members of the armed forces under the Secretary’s jurisdiction while the members are wearing the uniform. Such regulations shall be consistent with subsections (a) and (b).
(d) Religious Apparel Defined.— In this section, the term “religious apparel” means apparel the wearing of which is part of the observance of the religious faith practiced by the member.

[NavyDem]

78. Here is the DoD Directive as it pertains

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mili_rel.htm

Mostly, the prohibition of articles falls under (b)(2)(c) in your reference. Sorry for the late reply, did not keep an eye on this thread.

[Ohio Joe]

13. Do they allow people of other religions to break dress code?

Sorry but I do not see having a dress code as discrimination.

[sudopod]

16. The law is the law. I think headgear is silly, too.

But they can't hire her, put her to work in the store room away from the paying customers, then fire her when they change their mind in this case. The law seems pretty clear on that.

[Ohio Joe]

21. Sure they can

One person can make a call to put her back there and someone higher up the food chain can decide that they will enforce the rule. That seems to be what happened.

[sudopod]

22. And then they got sued for it.

No one implied it would violate a law of nature.

[Ohio Joe]

24. You can sue anyone for pretty much anything

It does not mean you will win and I expect she will not win. I also don't think she deserves to win.

[sudopod]

25. How is it not a violation of the Civil Rights Act?

They shouldn't have hired her if it was going to be a problem.

Face it, some HR douchebag decided to be a dick and came down on her, and now they are going to have to pay some pittance to make her go away.

Why does that get people so hot and bothered?

[NavyDem]

26. Devils advocate...

I just did some quick reading on how Islam sees women working outside the home. According to what I read, "care must be taken to choose employment that is appropriate and fits with her skills. Obviously, any work that deals with forbidden activities, services, or products would not be allowed but there is a world of possibilities available. " http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=139358

Given the type of attire generally available at an A&F, would this type of work be appopriate with her faith?

[sudopod]

28. I don't think that the court will get into a theological argument with her.

I think all theological debates are silly, as their subject does not exist, but there ya go. Even if they chose to, there is as wide a spectrum of Muslim belief as there is Christian belief. Moreover, taking that tack would more or less be an admission of guilt, wouldn't it?

[NavyDem]

30. I don't know if it would be an admission of guilt or not.

I am in full agreement with you with regards to theology (I am athiest). My only thought is that is it could be argued that she is picking and choosing which religious edicts to follow to suit her argument. In other words, she ignores that the store she works in is likely offensive and inappropriate in accordance with he beliefs, but wearing of religious clothing must be adhered to. I hope I'm making some kind of sense.

[sudopod]

32. Fundies say the same thing about non-fundies.

They'll say to the Episcopal folks, "The Bible isn't a buffet for you to pick what you like and leave the rest." to which I reply, "Then why are you eating that delicious shrimp? I'll take if off your hands since I'm doomed anyway!"

It is a reasonable point that you make! It could work as far as a debate between outside observers. However, unless A&F are willing to interrogate everyone she knows to demonstrate her previous beliefs, where could that line of thought go? Xenu save them from the backlash if they couldn't find proof of lawsuit fishing!

[readmoreoften]

39. Why do people say "Devil's Advocate" when they really mean the crap they say?

[Ohio Joe]

27. How do you know that is the case?

You know the circumstances of her hiring? She was probably hired by the store manager, who may or may not be the same person at the time she was told to remove her religious attire... Perhaps when she was interviewed she agreed not to wear it but changed her mind... Perhaps it was not mentioned at all the the manager expected she would read the dress code.

Even if it is a case of some HR douchebag, she still does not deserve a dime, if she can't keep her religion out of work she should be fired.

As far as her civil rights... None of them are being violated, she refuses to follow the rules of her employment.

Hot and bothered? Not a bit, just stating the facts, you seem to be the one that is hot and bothered about the subjuct.

[sudopod]

29. Everyone has an opinion.

"Even if it is a case of some HR douchebag, she still does not deserve a dime, if she can't keep her religion out of work she should be fired."

But the law says what the law says. And you didn't address what the law says, you just restated your opinion, which is admirably hostile to silly beliefs. Your opinion, however, distinctly disjoint with the law (at least this layman's reading of it).

A discussion of the Civil Rights Act is included in the thread OP, by the way. In case you missed it. FYI.

As far as why I care? I too am a (ir)religious minority.

[Ohio Joe]

31. What you cite talks about discrimination

There is no discrimination here, it is a dress code issue but please... amuse me and explain how it does violate her civil rights. Please, cite the law they are breaking and explain how they are breaking it. So far all you have done is cry discrimination yet for that to be true you must show where they allow other to break the code while stopping her.... Well?

[sudopod]

33. She believes that she has to wear the hijab due to her religion, which is admittedly silly.

Oh those nasty liberals, crying discrimination!

Here, how about I prove my bona fides, eh?

There is no god, and if there were, Mohammad is probably not his prophet.

But she believes otherwise, and she has every right to it. Let me lay it out for you:

IF she did not agree to a strict clause that waived her rights in this regards, and
IF was hired with the understanding that it was OK,
AND then corporate decided otherwise and fired her
AND had no other outstanding reason to fire her,
then yes, they violated the Civil Rights Act.

It's discrimination. It's pretty clear cut. From http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html :

=======
1. What is “religion” under Title VII?
...
Similarly, requests for accommodation of a “religious” belief or practice could include, for example: a Catholic employee requesting a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday; a Muslim employee requesting an exception to the company’s dress and grooming code allowing her to wear her headscarf, or a Hindu employee requesting an exception allowing her to wear her bindi (religious forehead marking); an atheist asking to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings; an adherent to Native American spiritual beliefs seeking unpaid leave to attend a ritual ceremony; or an employee who identifies as Christian but is not affiliated with a particular sect or denomination requests accommodation of his religious belief that working on his Sabbath is prohibited.

[Ohio Joe]

34. Thats a lot of "if's" and "and's"

Everywhere I've worked that had a dress code, enforced or not, it was part of the documentation you sign when you are hired. If a person lower down the food chain said she did not have to follow it, that is fine until someone higher up says she does, then she does. Even if they did not have it in the sign up process, she will have a nearly impossible time proving she was unaware of the dress code.

[sudopod]

35. Have you ever considered that you have way too much respect for authorities? :3

Since you don't seem to like clicking on links to government websites, I'll paste some more relevant bits for your reading pleasure. To be honest, the more I read the more it looks as if A&F are boned.
=======

6. When does Title VII require an employer to accommodate an applicant or employee’s religious belief, practice, or observance?

Title VII requires an employer, once on notice that a religious accommodation is needed, to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. Under Title VII, the undue hardship defense to providing religious accommodation requires a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses a “more than de minimis” cost or burden. Note that this is a lower standard for an employer to meet than undue hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which is defined in that statute as “significant difficulty or expense.”

=======


9. When does an accommodation pose an “undue hardship”?

An accommodation would pose an undue hardship if it –would cause more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business. Factors relevant to undue hardship may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.

Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employer’s business. For example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered.

To prove undue hardship, the employer will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption a proposed accommodation would involve. An employer cannot rely on potential or hypothetical hardship when faced with a religious obligation that conflicts with scheduled work, but rather should rely on objective information. A mere assumption that many more people with the same religious practices as the individual being accommodated may also seek accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship.

If an employee’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship, the employer should explore alternative accommodations.

[Ohio Joe]

36. ahhh, name calling now

This has nothing to do with "too much respect for authorities". This has to do with religious people feeling their beliefs top everything. So far all you have is some guesses as to why her civil rights might have been violated but again, none of that will matter if she signed an agreement to the dress code... and that is pretty standard. If you don't think the HR person did not check with legal before firing her, I think you are sadly mistaken.

[sudopod]

37. In like manner,

It would be silly of someone like Ms. Kahn, who lives on a mall worker's budget, to sue an enormous corporation if she had already signed a waiver.

I noticed that you haven't talked about those excerpts from the EEOC website I posted earlier. Those are the government's legal opinions, and it seems based on any reading of them that she has a pretty ironclad case. Would you like me to repost them, or do you have a disagreement with those?

You know, if corporations never did anything wrong, we'd never have to regulate them, would we?

[Ohio Joe]

38. I have addressed them, you just ignore it

I'll say it slower since you seem to have trouble understanding. None... of... it... means... anything... if... she... signed... a... dress... code... agreement... that... is... standard.

"You know, if corporations never did anything wrong, we'd never have to regulate them, would we?"

Having a dress code is not doing anything wrong.

I'm done with this circle non-sense you want to do here though, get back to me when you actually have some facts instead of just a strong desire to see us all bow to religion.

[sudopod]

40. Ok, I guess?

No one said she's signed a waiver, by the way. :/

I really don't see why this got so far up your butt. I suspect we agree on most things.

I can blaspheme against anything you like if it will make you feel better.

[Ohio Joe]

41. It is not the topic, it is your steadfast defense when you don't even try to know the facts

I just took a look at their site:

http://www.abercrombie.com/anf/careers/storeOpportunities.html

They don't hire sales people in the stores, they hire models. This absolutely gives them the right to dictate dress. I also see there are two women suing because they wore head gear to interviews and were refused employment because they would not take of their head gear. Neither of the suits have merit and are clearly scams to try and get money. The women you refer to in the OP baited them, agreeing not to wear it and then wearing it anyway so she would be fired. The whole thing is a scam.

[sudopod]

42. I don't know anything about the two other suits.

However, my OP did not involve them, and I will need to do some reading to comment on them. Ms. Kahn is a different case, and seems to have negotiated an exception to the rule which was later revoked. As for their motivations, I don't see how they would affect their suit's worthiness relative to the law.

If a black person sought out a racist restaurant proprieter, recorded the fact that he was told he could work there "cause he's a n*gger", and then sued the bastard, I can't say I would shed any tears.

Just because you don't like their beliefs doesn't mean that they are wrong. The law as stated on the EEOC site seems to be on their side.

[Ohio Joe]

43. No matter the facts, you defend this scammer

One does not "negotiated an exception" to being a model, a model wears what a model is told to wear or they get another model.

Keep crying civil rights violation all you want, you are defending a piece of shit scammer, the facts are clear.

[sudopod]

44. Is that your professional legal opinion

or are you just mad?

[Ohio Joe]

45. It's not mad, it's disgust

Sorry, your attempts to make me mad are not working. Why do you continue to defend this piece of shit? It's obvious she's a scammer.

[sudopod]

47. You can have a strong feeling about it

but it isn't all that obvious.

I'll defend her rights all day long, just as I hope someone else would defend yours and mine were the tables turned. Considering where I live, that is none too unlikely.

[sudopod]

46. They have a history of this sort of thing.

Banishing handicapped worker to the stockroom

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192674/I-banished-stockroom-says-disabled-shop-girl-suing-Abercrombie--Fitch-discrimination.html

Same with Black and Latino folks

http://www.afjustice.com/

[Ohio Joe]

48. Neither of those are like this

A model that refuses to model as told is NOT being discriminated against. An employee that takes a job knowing they lied about fulfilling the job requirements is NOT being discriminated against. There is NO discrimination going on in this case. This is not even something that could be seen as vague or that there could be maybes, it is clear cut that she lied to get hired.

awwww, the poor religious muslim woman that wanted to model soft porn clothing while wearing head gear.... Seriously, are you shitting me? You really think this is discrimination rather then a scam? Yeah, she has a right to sue but it will get laughed out of court. It's cases like this that make me think the loser should pay all court and legal fees.

[sudopod]

49. But you don't know if she lied or modified her contract, do you?

Incidentally, before they reneged they had also banished her to the stockroom.

[Ohio Joe]

50. oh please

She modified her contract to model soft porn clothes to let her wear head gear... and they agreed to that... Then when they went to legal to fire her (which I guarantee was done), legal said "oh yeah, we signed an odd contract that we did for nobody else that lets her do this but lets break it and fire her anyway"... You really think that could be?

You really think the soft porn clothing company decided to let a model change their standard hiring contract so that she could wear head gear while modeling half naked?

You really believing all that? Seriously? If you are, you are simply ignoring facts and I expect have another reason for defending this woman other then thinking her civil rights are being violated because they clearly are not. I look forward to reading your "ohhh the injustice" thread when this gets laughed out of court.

[sudopod]

52. double post nt

[sudopod]

53. You act like enormous companies who market primarily to douchebags never step on people. nt

[Ohio Joe]

54. Non-sense, I am looking at the facts

Something you seem to refuse to do, instead you are just making excuses for a scammer. Pulling "maybes" from the air that make zero sense and clinging to them regardless of facts.

Why do you act like there is no such thing as a douchebag scammer even when all the facts point to it?

[sudopod]

55. It's really impressive how you've managed to convict her based on her hat.

If it were a pointy hat, should she be burned as a witch?

[Ohio Joe]

56. More non-sense, do you ever plan on addressing the facts?

How many times must it all be gone over before you face facts? You have not a single one but still defend this scammer, again, why? Try giving an actual answer instead of insults and insinuations this time.

The good muslim woman that wants to model soft porn but... in her head gear? How are you explaining that fact?

Models do not decide what they wear, they do not get to re-write their contracts. they do it or get fired. How are you explaining that fact?

The company has a history of not hiring women that insist they want to wear head gear. This means she lied to get the job, it was a scam from the start. How are you explaining that fact?

[sudopod]

57. Which facts? The ones where A&F obviously violated the Civil Rights Act?

With multiple paragraphs from government anti-discrimination sites highlighted for your convenience?

Sorry, but liking the wrong invisible sky friend does not make one guilty of everything by default. You keep on carrying on about "models" and "contracts", but you don't know what she signed nor how it was modified, nor if she even had the right to sign her rights away in this case. Also, it should be pointed out that it clearly costs A&F nothing to let her wear her hat under the de minimis standerd in the CRA, unlike in other stated cases (i.e. Hooters).

But please, continue to be loudly and enormously butt frustrated that a member of your least favorite religion might win one.

Also, the referent thread started by Sarah I. has been locked due to enormous asshattery on her part. I lol'd.

[Ohio Joe]

58. Your claims of discrimination need facts to back them up

Otherwise they just seem like cheering for the "right" religion to win.

Simple denial of the facts does not make them go away, why do you not address them?

"But please, continue to be loudly and enormously butt frustrated that a member of your least favorite religion might win one."

More insinuations here? How do you know what my least favorite religion is? Perhaps you should do some research on my previous comments on religion before making such accusations.

"Also, the referent thread started by Sarah I. has been locked due to enormous asshattery on her part. I lol'd."

Did you bait Sarah as you try to bait me? You keep making accusation to try and get me riled but it does not work. Perhaps you should try to address the facts instead of baiting?

oh wait... you simply have no facts and deny them when you see them. Where have I seen that before?

[sudopod]

59. Clearly I love Islam more than every other religion that I don't believe in.

This one time I went to a mosque with a friend, and they were so impressed by my command of the Arabic language (as well as my luxurious, manly beard) that they invited me to give the sermon that day, though I had to gracefully decline. I am an unwholesome godless bastard who doesn't believe in things like killing the infidel and apocalyptic retribution and probably wouldn't have done a good job anyway.

In light of my experience, I think it's fair to say that you're letting your angst about them terrorists get in the way of your higher reasoning abilities, since you too are now carrying on about things which do not exist (i.e. massive evidence that everyone who sues A&F for discrimination must be a scammer). This, while being ironic, should give you and Ms. Khan something to discuss now that you have something in common, should you ever encounter one another in real life.

If these facts are real and not in the same platonic realm as dodecahedrons and unicorns, could you post a link or something?

BTW, Sarah dug her own hole and someone else must have reported her. I'm only shocked she didn't get the boot, tbh, but old-timers get more leeway, which is fair, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if its kind of dumb and mean.

[Ohio Joe]

60. Wow, just making stuff up now?

"In light of my experience, I think it's fair to say that you're letting your angst about them terrorists get in the way of your higher reasoning abilities, since you too are now carrying on about things which do not exist (i.e. massive evidence that everyone who sues A&F for discrimination must be a scammer). This, while being ironic, should give you and Ms. Khan something to discuss now that you have something in common, should you ever encounter one another in real life."

When did I ever say "massive evidence that everyone who sues A&F for discrimination must be a scammer" oh... I did not, I said this woman was but... facts are something you ignore. When did I ever say anything about terrorists or even insinuate anything about them? Again, facts are simply something you ignore. Instead it is much easier for you to continue trying to bait me with your insinuations. Sorry, still not working.

"If these facts are real and not in the same platonic realm as dodecahedrons and unicorns, could you post a link or something?"

You, who have not given a single fact, just your fantasy about civil rights violations... oh yes, you list the titles but give no connection to the case, just stuff you think might have happened.

I've already given the link that shows they only hire models but... you ignored it and now deny it. Do you really need a link that says what a model does? Are you that unaware of such things? You believe people hire models to wear just anything and not specific items? When are you going to address the good muslim woman that wants to wear soft porn with head gear? That really makes sense to you? When are you going to address any of of what I've brought up? I see the game you are playing and I grow tired of it. If you can manage to start addressing things instead of just making insinuations, I will continue but I'm tired of your game of bait.

[sudopod]

61. Clearly there was an exception made for her if they hired her.

Else, she would not have been hired, right? Otherwise, it's logically impossible that she should have ever worked there in the first place.

But surely you have something else up your sleeve?

Also, I would ask if you've ever been hurting for money. Sometimes, you take what is available because it's all there is. Given slightly different circumstances she'd likely be slaving away in a MacDonalds.

I've never seen anyone naked in one of those stores, though I've peeked in on occasion out of curiosity (that odd smell they insist in perfuming the place with drives me out fairly quickly). Or is your primary experience with A&F involve their catalogue? (wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more).

[riderinthestorm]

62. A&F hires their staff under "modeling" contracts, like actors, which means they can discriminate

in order to get the "look" they want. My daughters have friends who work at A&F and I've seen their employment papers personally since this issue first raised it's ugly head with the first lawsuit.

A&F dresses their staff in A&F clothing every day and calls their sales staff "models". I know this girl was hired as a stock clerk but obviously even that was covered under A&F's dress code policy. A single manager laudably, obviously, tried to be inclusive and a higher up has disagreed. A&F's branding is soft core porn and sex. Religious garb that is designed to be modest, or that doesn't fit into A&F's branding strategy can be legally excluded under modeling (and acting) employment contracts.

These types of cases stem from Disney's legal precedents that say they can require their staff, as "models" and "actors", to wear the assigned costumes without any other personal or religious adornment. That they can 'discriminate" based on appearance (they don't want an African American "Snow White" or a Caucasian "Frog Princess", gender (only men will be considered for roles like Prince Charming) etc.

Hooters has also followed this legal precedent and been able to "discriminate" against applicants who can't or won't wear (or fit into) their costume.

Its a fine line and I hate it but there's too much legal precedent for it.

Work place dress codes are a milder form of this.

[sudopod]

63. They've tried this with Black, Latino, and Handicapped employees before

and got their asses handed to them. If any business were able to avoid the Civil Rights Act by calling their employees "models", I suspect the minority employment situation would be a bit different than it is today. :3

According the the EEOC statements posted above, there is a way for employers to avoid having to make a religious exemption. Essentially, they have to show that making the exception would put an undue financial burden (de minimis) on the company. In Hooters' case, religious garb, being a hairy man, or being to big to fit in the costume would very much hurt Hooter's bottom line. However, letting a Muslim girl who isn't near the public wear a small piece of cloth on her head along with the normal A&F gear would cost A&F nothing.

[riderinthestorm]

64. Can you give me some real legal cases where a place like Hooters or Disney

or even A&F has had their asses handed to them for calling their employees models and actors?

I'm sure A&F would argue that religious garb designed to emphasize modesty would hurt their bottom line (which is a clothing store designed around soft core porn garments and sexy skimpy outfits).

I've already said I don't like it but as long as the legal precedent is already established you aren't going to be seeing an AA Cinderella anytime soon.

[sudopod]

65. As far as I can tell from the media, the only issue is the hijab.

I don't see how they can make the same case about one out-of-sight employee wearing a hat hurting the bottom line like, say, a fat hairy guy in a Hooters outfit would discourage people spending money at Hooters. The reason Hooters and Disney can do that is because it is kind of a big deal, in context. Assuming Ms. Khan's only problem is with the hijab, and she has no problem wearing skinny jeans and washed out t-shrits, then I see no cost incurred by A&F...unless their customers have a problem with religious minorities.

As far as discrimination lawsuits A&F has lost, I would refer you to the following:

=============

Banishing handicapped worker to the stockroom

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192674/I-banis...

Same with Black and Latino folks

http://www.afjustice.com/

=============

Incidentally, one would think that banishing her to the stock room would be a better case, considering there's a history there, but I'm not a lawyer. :3

[riderinthestorm]

66. Your first link doesn't take me to any article. And the Daily Mail is a gossip rag

but nonetheless, your link only goes to a general front page and I didn't see the story.

Your second link is from 6 years ago and deals with discrimination in gender and race which doesn't seem to be the case in the OP. The young woman isn't conforming to A&F's dress code, nor their requirements that their employees wear their costume as assigned for the day sans religious add-ons especially head gear.

The "cost" to A&F is that one of their employees is explicitly wearing garb that is by it's very nature espousing "modesty" while the company brand is soft core porn and sex.

You don't see any conflict with that?

And 'stock girl" in A&F is very different than what you and I think it is. "Stock" personnel actually ARE out on the floor, replenishing supplies on the shelves. Their employee designation is simply to stock, not sell. Only "models" sell (and get the commission).

It's fucked up. But the employees agree to it. I actually asked one of my daughters' friends to bring me their paperwork from
A&F so I could look it over and it appears pretty legit from this non-lawyers eyes.

But it's in the courts now and since this is obviously a huge grey area imho, it will be interesting how it plays out. Thanks for a thoughtful convo.

[sudopod]

67. whoops, doubleposten. nt

[sudopod]

68. Is that an undue burden, do you think?

That is essentially what the court will be deciding.

And likewise!

Here is a better link, btw:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/aug/13/abercrombie-fitch-employee-case-damages

EDIT: newer article!

[onenote]

71. don't have a hooters or disney case, but here a couple of examples

This one involves Blockbuster and a guy who insisted on the right to wear a yarmulke.

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.

Here's one involving an assisted living company:
Ivy Hall Assisted Living Pays $43,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
EEOC Charged Female Employee Fired Because of Muslim Headdress

ATLANTA – Ivy Hall Assisted Living, LLC will pay $43,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The agency had charged that Ivy Hall discriminated against a female housekeeper by firing her rather than accommodating her religious belief that she wear a Muslim head scarf (hijab) outside her home. According to the EEOC’s suit, Ivy Hall insisted that, as a condition of her continued employment, Khadija Ahdaoui remove and refrain from wearing her hijab on the job.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make an effort to accommodate employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC filed the suit on September 30, 2008 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No.: 1:08-CV-3067-BBM-SSC).

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief of $43,000, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting of any further religious discrimination complaints, and posting of an anti-discrimination notice. In the suit and consent decree, Ivy Hall denied any liability or wrongdoing.

“Title VII protects employees from having to make the choice Ms. Ahdaoui was forced to make between her religious beliefs and her employment,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “The Commission is pleased that Ivy Hall committed itself to resolving this matter and to taking the necessary steps to ensure future compliance with the law.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

[sudopod]

72. Awesome! That really drives it home, doesn't it? nt

[onenote]

73. Here's one more. A non mainstream religion.

http://archive.eeoc.gov/press/9-16-05.html

[riderinthestorm]

76. The religion isn't important imho. It's the costuming required by a place like Disney, A&F etc

Face it, Red Robin isn't known for it's outfits like Hooters.

I simply don't see this case or the other one you posted as analogous since those people aren't hired to either fit a certain uniform like Hooters, or to be a specific model for a brand like A&F, or hired to fulfill certain characters like Disney.

[onenote]

81. The Hooters and Disney cases are easily distinguishable

Any lawyer worth his salt will have no trouble making a case against A&F, even if Disney and Hooters could win a case involving the same head covering.

First, the fact that an employer requires employees to wear a "uniform" doesn't exempt the employer from having to make a "reasonable accommodation" in its uniform requirement to allow the wearing of religious attire. The issue is whether accommodating the employee's beliefs can be accomplished without imposing an "undue burden" on the employer.

Second, the uniforms that Disney and Hooters employees wear are essentially costumes -- as such, it can be argued that a head covering cannot be worn without undermining the "character" that the costume is supposed to represent. (I'd argue that Disney has an easier time making this case than Hooters, but I can see the possibility that either might prevail).

Third, A&F's problem is that its employees aren't playing a role by dressing in the required "uniform" -- they are "modeling" A&F clothing -- trying to sell the product. To the extent an employee works out of public view, as in a stockroom, there is absolutely no burden imposed on A&F to allow an employee to wear a hajib or yarmulke etc.

Fourth, and finally, even as to those employees that work in public view, the uniform doesn't include a hat or other head covering, so its not a burden on A&F to allow a headcovering to be worn with its "uniform." All it would take is for a lawyer to put an A&F official on the stand and ask them whether, if a person wearing a yarmulke or hajib came into the store, would they sell them A&F clothing. Presumably they would, which evidences the fact that what you wear on your head is not incompatible with the A&F look and thus there is no burden in allowing someone to "model" A&F clothes wearing a hajib or yarmulke. To put in somewhat different terms, A&F couldn't declare that part of its "uniform" look is that it should only be modeled by white people, unless of course they were willing to stand up and declare that their product is not intended for purchase by non whites.

I suspect that in the head, A&F folds like a cheap suit and enters into a consent decree with the government and a cash settlement with the employee.

[riderinthestorm]

75. But Blockbuster is not selling a clothing image at all.

The employees wear a Blockbuster shirt and that's all their "uniform" really consists of, and Blockbuster's "brand" does not revolve around their clothing like A&F.


I don't see this as comparable to Hooters, Disney or even A&F where the outfit is integral to the company branding.

[sudopod]

77. Sigh, I guess you found the loophole to decades of progress.

Just don't let anyone in Alabama know, or else every job here will involve "modelling."

[riderinthestorm]

79. I didn't find it or exploit it. Nor do I condone it. But the big corps have

and been very successful at it.

I would imagine that courts use common sense when evaluating whether a corporation can claim that their personnel must conform to uniform or costuming requirements. While a Disney employee can't wear a yarmulke when they are dressed as Johnny Depp's character from Pirates of the Caribbean, or Woody from Toy Story, I believe it's fair to say that a Blockbuster employee wearing a yarmulke or hijab should face absolutely no discrimination.

Peace.

[sudopod]

80. Okay nt

[brainbowseverywhere]

82. Bump

Confirmation bias is terrifying.