Lawsuit: Abercrombie Said Muslim's Headscarf Violated "Look Policy"
Looks like Abercrombie & Fitch just can't catch a break lately -- at least when they discriminate against employees who don't fit the company's image because they've committed the outrageous offense of, oh, having been born with only one arm. Or, in the latest incident, having a religion that just happens to include its own rules on proper attire. In this case, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission is suing A&F for discrimination after it refused to hire a Muslim woman who wouldn't remove her headscarf. "Abercrombie and Fitch should make exceptions to its policy when needed and we don't believe it would be an undue burden on the company," said Michelle Robertson, an EEOC lawyer.
According to the government suit against Abercrombie & Fitch, Samantha Elauf, who was 17 at the time, applied for a position in an Oklahoma store in June, 2008. The suit states that:
Defendant refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy, and, further, failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy.
A&F responded to the charges by telling ABC News that the company has "a strong equal opportunity employment policy and we accommodate religious beliefs and practices when possible." But this isn't the first time the company has gotten into hot water over religion. In another pending discrimination case, A&F's Hollister brand is being charged with violating the rights of a Pentecostal Christian employee, who had requested permission to wear longer skirts than the company typically allows.
Lawsuit: Muslim Scarf Not Part of Abercrombie & Fitch 'Look' [ABC News]
Previously:
One-Armed Abercrombie & Fitch Worker Wins Wrongful Dismissal Case
Post a comment
Comments:
While I'm all for freedom of religion, I don't think that companies should be required to make exceptions to generally applicable policies such as these to accommodate someone whose religious beliefs are at odds with the policy. The company has a policy that no headgear is to be worn; the prospective employee has a policy that she has to wear a headscarf (clearly headgear). Why should the company be the one that has to give? She's free to work for a company that doesn't have policies that conflict with her religion. If she really wants to work for Abercrombie, she should be the one who has to change.
I wish I understood why someone who values modesty and simplicity in terms of dress, like a Muslim, Orthodox Jewish, or Pentecostal Christian woman, would want to work at Abercrombie and Fitch. Nevertheless, as if we needed one more reason to find the company repulsive, we have it, and the best thing we can do is take our business elsewhere.
You joke about it but a checker at Target wouldn't touch my bacon. She called in someone else to slide it across the scanner.
If your religious beliefs conflict with the policies of your job, I feel you should either bend your beliefs or find a new job.
People choose a religion. They don't choose a disability. Hence, those who are disabled get a free pass and those who make poor life choices don't.
Hopefully this lawsuit fails.
@Esquire99: This is a tough one and I'm torn.
On the one hand, it is a tenant of her religion. She should not be prevented from working due to it. However...
If I were A&F, I would argue as a defense whether she is truly following her religion. She shouldn't be able to pick and choose which parts to follow and then beat the company over the head with that. Does she ever eat pork? Does her family own a dog? It might be a little slimy, but I see it as the only real defense against this.
@wgrune: Y'know, I joked about that exact scenario every time a born-again Christian pharmacist makes the news for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. I have never heard about it actually happening.
On the record, I think pharmacists who let their religious beliefs interfere with job duties deserve to get canned.
My former employer was in a worse position - they already hired a Jew who insisted on not working on Saturdays. He was specifically warned several times during the hiring process that he would be required to work over weekends, but he didn't say anything about his religion. Once hired, he didn't make any secret of it anymore, and we couldn't fire him. Fortunately, a few years of being not getting any raises convinced him to find a more understanding employer.
@wgrune: i normally wouldnt side with the "evil corp" but in this case i will.
i couldnt have said it better then you just did!!!
@TuxthePenguin:
I don't think you can really make an argument based on selective practice of the religion. Nearly every practitioner of every religion practices in a selective manner.
I think they should have to prove that the policy was enacted with the intent to discriminate against people based on their religion in order to prevail. If it's simply a policy that is applied to everyone, I think it's absurd that they should be expected to make an exception because someone has a religious belief that conflicts with it.
As a new convert to the Amish Mennonite Church I'm considering suing my current employer which forces me to use this wretched computer day in and day out.
Was there no where else in the mall to apply?
Maybe Hot-Dog-On-A-Stick would be more lenient.
"a strong equal opportunity employment policy and we accommodate religious beliefs and practices when possible"
The key being "when possible." They'll gladly accommodate religious beliefs unless such an accommodation would contradict their rules on proper attire. In such cases it would not be possible to accommodate.
@pax: the first half of your statement is something i can agree with. the comment on needing another reason to hate them, not so much. if they have a no "hats" policy, this girl should not be an exception. a&f is not discriminating against her religion only against her fashion sense. religion is a choice.
I can see problems with complete facial covering (chadri or burqa). But a scarf (hijab)? It's not just Muslims that consider decency to include women covering their hair. Some Christian denominations do, too.
@kateblack:
I agree 100%. A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions, not to impose their beliefs on others. If you can't perform your job 100%, GTFO.
So what, now Mormons can sue because they can't get a job at a strip club because of the strippers? As was stated, there is dress code that is evenly applied to all employees. The policy is not prejudiced against religion; the religion is prejudiced against the policy. If your religion doesn't allow you to take off your hat, you'd better find a job where you can wear one.
While you could not pay me enough to work at a company with this kind of policy (I wear polos and jean shorts to work in the IT field everyday). I am really on the fence with this one. Yes freedom of religion and expression are important but companies traditionally have the right to dictate what you wear on the clock.
When the companies product line consists of overpriced clothing totally dependent on marketing a particular image, I can't see condemning them for protecting that image. Maybe we should be concerned about the shallow state of our 15 - 25 year old consumers.
This seems like one of those situations where you ask why would someone apply to work at a place where their religious beliefs obviously wouldn't mix with the company culture and expectations. I mean, I work in higher education. I'm Jewish. There are 2 major universities in my city that are Christian based, and others that make you sign a statement saying that you'll live a Christian life while working there. Before I apply for a job at any of these, I would ensure that I would be comfortable and able to do so. I might be comfortable at the big schools, but not the smaller ultra-religious one with said statement signing.
Abercrombie is known for that sexy image. If they get away with their employees all walking around half-naked, they would. So why apply there knowing that you can't follow their own code of attire?
I have an idea! It's against my religion to do any productive work at my job, so when I get fired for not ever doing anything, I'm going to sue the company for not accommodating my religious beliefs. My plan is flawless, MUHAHAHA...
@shepd: I would not call it a poor life choice. I would call it a poor corporate policy. Neverthless, it is the right of both to choose as they do. So I see the lawsuit as not having merit.
@kateblack: "Next up, bacon manufacturer sued for refusing to hire workers whose religious beliefs forbid the handling of pork products"
I don't know if you're merely joking or whether you attempted to make a serious analogy. If it's the former, stick to jokes. Your situation is not even remotely analogous to what's going on here..
Some religions bar the consumption and handing of certain foods. One being pork. It would simply be impossible for a bacon manufacture to accommodate such a person.
However, in this present situation, there is simply nothing keeping Abercrombie & Fitch from accommodating this lady, other than their stubborn and illegal refusal to change their discriminatory rule.
@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: And are they forcing you to visit Consumerist.Com and post?
@firemunkie: I don't totally disagree with you, either, but at the same time, I find it repulsive that this company refuses to hire teenagers for minor "violations" of its "Look Policy." I'm not necessarily saying that they're legally in the wrong--it's a pretty gray area and a reasonable judge could say that they are not. But morally, I find them repulsive, for many reasons, and am proud to say that even when I reached the point in my life when I could afford to shop there, I never did.
It doesnt interfere with her ability to do the job, they should just make an AF branded headcovering
Tough one, but I'm siding with A&F on this one. Companies have a brand image to maintain and the workers at the store have a certain look that conveys this brand image. Maybe she should have applied at Benetton?
I seem to remember Hooters not hiring an overweight female and being sued (though body type is not a protected class) as well as a man applying for a waitress position and suing on gender discrimination claims. DK how that ended up. I guess if he wanted to wear the uniform?
I read this story on msnbc.com earlier. Funny how it stated she was suing, not the government, and she was asking for damages because of her "emotional damages". What a freaking idiot. Enough said.
@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient:
They'll accommodate you - good luck using a pad of paper and pencil to get your work done. What - you missed the big deadline for the financial analysis? We can fire you for that.
@quirkyrachel: Christian life sounds pretty hardcore, what with that killing siblings, throwing your children out to an angry mob to be raped and not being able to eat shellfish.
I couldn't commit to that.
@kateblack: Also real life example is the cab drivers in Minneapolis who would/will not transport anyone carry alcohol or animals. The drivers are a group of Somali immigrants.
Wasn't there a Christian woman suing British Airways because they made her cover her crucifix jewelry?
@so_gracefully: My thoughts exactly. The "look policy" is just some half-assed policy that most probably don't know about where as if someone who has religious beliefs about pork would.... i don't know... not actually apply at a place that manufactures bacon. It's common sense to know that and a bit ignorant to use that as an example.
IMHO the real story is that a hijab wearing muslim girl tried to get a job at A&F. I'd imagine someone with that much faith would find A&F a bit shallow.
@pax: I believe I will go buy some products from A&F this afternoon as that seems like the most appropriate response to this lawsuit.
@Skaperen: I agree, the lawsuit should fail. It's just that it won't because the courts always suck up to religion no matter how retarded the relevant issue tends to be.
IANAL, but I believe one points of contention will be the "undue hardship". If it costs the company an undue amount of hardship to accommodate her religious belief, they don't have to do it. Would letting her wear a head scarf really cause the company undue burden? Common sense would say no, but A&F might argue that the dress code is about branding and that violating the dress code would cause monetary damage to their brand.
I like the French view on things like this.
@shepd:
"People choose a religion."
No they don't. And this is one of the main bits of evidence demonstrating why religion is inherently irrational.
When you make a major decision in your life...or take a major action, like buying a house, choosing a career, agreeing to get married, etc. - you research what you're doing...or with any luck, at least, you research what you're doing.
Religion is, ostensibly, the most important decision you're ever going to make. Even moreso than who to marry, what house to buy, or what career to pursue. Because, ostensibly, if you choose incorrectly, you're going to spend eternity in hell (or some similar catastrophic penalty). Marrying the wrong guy/gal and putting up with them for 50 years pales in comparison to an eternity of horrific suffering.
So, do people carefully research all the available religions in the world, and then pick the one they feel most likely to get them to an acceptable afterlife? No. I don't have a scientific study (ha!) to refer to here, but I'm going to take a guess that 99% of all religious people simply adhere to whatever religion their parents did.
Why? Well, for one thing, parental pressure. If you, as the parent, are sure that your religion is the one true way, you're going to do everything in your power to ensure that your children also follow the one true way. Secondly, if as the child you truly felt that some other religion was a better bet, it would mean consigning your parents to an eternity of suffering (since you'd be saying at that point that they chose wrong). So on and so forth. The only possible decision that might be less than catastrophic is if the child chooses to be agnostic/atheist - where it could be argued that the parents have merely wasted a chunk of their lives on religion.
But at any rate, there you have it. People almost categorically do not choose their religion. It is chosen for them before they are even concieved, and the percieved penalties for choosing otherwise afterwards are so high as to prohibit most from even considering it.
I hardly think their no-ugly-people policy is equal opportunity. They should just admit that they like to discriminate.
@Skaperen: So what, then followers of those particular sects need not apply either. It even makes the point better that this is not discriminating against muslims, rather following a pre-established dress code.
It's like a member of The Westboro Baptist Church trying to work for GLADD.
@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient:
::Disable Sarcasm Detector::
If you inform them that you cannot fulfill your job requirements due to your new religious beliefs, they might be forced to find you another position in the company with a job description that accommodates your beliefs.
::Enable Sarcasm Detector::
A&F would have been better off legally (I think) had they hired her and then fired her for not adhering to -legal- company policy.
By not hiring her, I can see that being discriminatory since she hasn't broken any policy yet.
@Esquire99: Actually, I think the defense is that the policy against head scarves is a "bona fide occupational qualification". It's a defense laid out for employment law discrimination cases. Essentially, the employer CAN discriminate when such discrimination is necessary to do the job. I remember that I read about a case from Southwest Airlines that spoke directly about this. It was a long time ago. When Southwest started out, they had a policy of only hiring sexy women to be flight attendants (no men). They got sued on discrimination charges. The defense was that they were in the business of providing airplane rides with sexy flight attendants (see:
).Anyway, the defense didn't work. A&F will probably say that their "look" doesn't include head scarves, but it seems like a court would probably say that it's more reasonable and easier for A&F to tolerate a variance in their "look".
Next up, bacon manufacturer sued for refusing to hire workers whose religious beliefs forbid the handling of pork products.