Interesting SCOTUS Ruling

[Clyde]

EEOC vs Abercrombie Fitch

 

Nutshell: Muslim female applied for a sales position to work on the floor at the store. AF has a "Look Policy" that forbids women from wearing black or headwear.

 

The issue was never addressed during the interview because the employee was afraid it would cause a problem. After the interview she called her district manager and explained the situation. Mgr said to not hire her because of the "Look Policy."

 

SCOTUS ruled 8-1 in favor of the applicant.

 

I'll need Getslow or another legal mind to get into the intricacies but here's what caught my attention.

 

Here is the summary of the issue from SCOTUSblog:

 

Issue: Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer's actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.

 

 

Here is someone from Cornell Law dissecting the issue:

 

The question presented is whether an employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer’s actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/14-86

 

Besides the legal argument above can AF argue that wearing a jihab would cause harm to their business?

[Clyde]

For the record, the EEOC received support from any different religious organizations in this case.

[75center]

So the applicant did not wear the black or headwear when she interviewed? Do they only need to wear those particular garments at certain times which would interfere with her job? I cannot follow the link but will try later from another computer.

[Clyde]

So the applicant did not wear the black or headwear when she interviewed? Do they only need to wear those particular garments at certain times which would interfere with her job? I cannot follow the link but will try later from another computer.

 

I think she wore it.

[75center]

I think she wore it.

 

Thanks. To me it's open and shut in her favor. In my opinion if you open the door to a company claiming employee's religious garb would hurt their business, then we're starting down the same path of 1930's Germany.

[LIPTON BASH]

Agreed. Sounds like a good ruling to me.

[Getslow]

I haven't read much since the opinion came down yesterday, but I was following it closely when the oral arguments took place a couple months ago. This result isn't surprising given the lines of questioning the justices were subjecting these people to during the oral arguments.

 

They didn't take very kindly to the notion that someone wearing an hijab could be harmful to business.

 

As I was reading, it's certain that nothing about what Abercrombie is and the way they do business makes me want them to win anything; in fact, their corporate image makes me want the lot of them to be struck by lightning in an act of divine judgment.

 

They call their retail floor employees "sales models" and have a very strict dress code which involves wearing that brands clothes to work at employee expense. They regulate everything right down to which hideous, trendy hairstyles are acceptable and which equally hideous, trendy hairstyles are not.

 

We can argue all day that employers should be able to hire whoever they want, but that ship sailed ages ago right along with "hiring a black person would make my white customers not want to come in here". The employer knew she always wore a hijab (from the interview) and why she wore it (from a conversation between the manager and a friend of the interviewee who told him she was a Muslim). And the manager made clear that the Islamic practice was the reason for not hiring her. That's enough to violate the constitutional protections for discriminatory hiring practices under the EEOC's clarification of Supreme Court rulings.

[All Tell]

Here are my questions without reading the opinion because legalese makes my brain itch:

 

If the employee was given the opportunity to keep the job without the head wear but refused on religious grounds would a Christian wearing a crucifix or a Jew wearing a Start of David be afforded the same right?

 

If you can't be discriminated against for participating in a religious observance does that mean that Christians can not be compelled to work on Christmas or other religious holidays?

[75center]

Here are my questions without reading the opinion because legalese makes my brain itch:

 

If the employee was given the opportunity to keep the job without the head wear but refused on religious grounds would a Christian wearing a crucifix or a Jew wearing a Start of David be afforded the same right?

 

If you can't be discriminated against for participating in a religious observance does that mean that Christians can not be compelled to work on Christmas or other religious holidays?

 

As I understand it the head wear is required by their religion. The crucifix and Star of David are not so that would be a major factor.

[Getslow]

Here are my questions without reading the opinion because legalese makes my brain itch:

 

If the employee was given the opportunity to keep the job without the head wear but refused on religious grounds would a Christian wearing a crucifix or a Jew wearing a Start of David be afforded the same right?

 

If you can't be discriminated against for participating in a religious observance does that mean that Christians can not be compelled to work on Christmas or other religious holidays?

 

1) I don't know of any Christian sects or denominations that require the public wearing of a crucifix and wearing the Star of David on one's clothes has a connotation that is decidedly not Jewish and, in fact, anti-semitic but I see what you mean. It would be an interesting test of the law but not a 1:1 comparison as far as I can tell. I'd like to see an orthodox Jewish interviewee have this issue as they have strict rules regarding dress and appearance.

 

2) Would be a fun test case these days but I don't believe the Catholic Church (can't speak for other denominations) recognizes an absolute prohibition for work on holy days. I'm sure there are other denominations with stricter rules out there. Would make demonstrating a religious obligation difficult.

[littleluck55]

I haven't read much since the opinion came down yesterday, but I was following it closely when the oral arguments took place a couple months ago. This result isn't surprising given the lines of questioning the justices were subjecting these people to during the oral arguments.

 

They didn't take very kindly to the notion that someone wearing an hijab could be harmful to business.

 

As I was reading, it's certain that nothing about what Abercrombie is and the way they do business makes me want them to win anything; in fact, their corporate image makes me want the lot of them to be struck by lightning in an act of divine judgment.

 

They call their retail floor employees "sales models" and have a very strict dress code which involves wearing that brands clothes to work at employee expense. They regulate everything right down to which hideous, trendy hairstyles are acceptable and which equally hideous, trendy hairstyles are not.

 

We can argue all day that employers should be able to hire whoever they want, but that ship sailed ages ago right along with "hiring a black person would make my white customers not want to come in here". The employer knew she always wore a hijab (from the interview) and why she wore it (from a conversation between the manager and a friend of the interviewee who told him she was a Muslim). And the manager made clear that the Islamic practice was the reason for not hiring her. That's enough to violate the constitutional protections for discriminatory hiring practices under the EEOC's clarification of Supreme Court rulings.

 

I work for a company that did their 401k plan. They requested a seminar about their plan but the condition was the speaker had to be a skinny female. They would not accept a meeting from someone else. This came from corporate.

[All Tell]

Was this the company a few years ago who's CEO caused a kerfuffle by saying that they didn't sell big sizes because they didn't want big people wearing their clothes?

[ggclfan]

I haven't read much since the opinion came down yesterday, but I was following it closely when the oral arguments took place a couple months ago. This result isn't surprising given the lines of questioning the justices were subjecting these people to during the oral arguments.

 

They didn't take very kindly to the notion that someone wearing an hijab could be harmful to business.

 

As I was reading, it's certain that nothing about what Abercrombie is and the way they do business makes me want them to win anything; in fact, their corporate image makes me want the lot of them to be struck by lightning in an act of divine judgment.

They call their retail floor employees "sales models" and have a very strict dress code which involves wearing that brands clothes to work at employee expense. They regulate everything right down to which hideous, trendy hairstyles are acceptable and which equally hideous, trendy hairstyles are not.

 

We can argue all day that employers should be able to hire whoever they want, but that ship sailed ages ago right along with "hiring a black person would make my white customers not want to come in here". The employer knew she always wore a hijab (from the interview) and why she wore it (from a conversation between the manager and a friend of the interviewee who told him she was a Muslim). And the manager made clear that the Islamic practice was the reason for not hiring her. That's enough to violate the constitutional protections for discriminatory hiring practices under the EEOC's clarification of Supreme Court rulings.

 

Quit sugar coating things Getslow...tell what you really think:)!

[InItToWinIt]

I think how Abercrombie requires their employees to have a dress code and the fact that they cited religious reasons for not hiring this woman is an absolute disgrace.

 

Now having said that, they do have a political right to run their business how they want to. I have no idea why Abercrombie would cite the requirements of Islam as the reason for not hiring this young lady as the 14th amendment makes that illegal. If they strictly said it was a dress code issue, they should have cited it as such.

[mcpapa]

Was this the company a few years ago who's CEO caused a kerfuffle by saying that they didn't sell big sizes because they didn't want big people wearing their clothes?

 

That rings a bell.