Back in February, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of a 17-year-old who applied to work for the children’s clothing store under the Abercrombie & Fitch brand. She was apparently beautiful enough to work there, but always wore a black scarf on her head. Did she wear it for religious reasons, which would mean that it couldn’t be a factor in hiring decisions? She didn’t say, so Abercrombie didn’t hire her. That case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued an opinion today. [More]
Two months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk et al., concerning the question of whether employees at a warehouse–an Amazon distribution center, in this case–should be paid for the time that they spend waiting for security checks when they leave work. The Supremes issued a unanimous decision earlier than expected, and they say that security checks should not be considered part of the job at a distribution center. [More]
Back in 2008, a 17-year-old in Oklahoma applied for a job at a local Abercrombie Kids store. She made the cut, but learned that the store’s “look policy” wouldn’t allow her to wear a religious head covering. Just over a year ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won the right for employees to wear religious head coverings while they battle the cologne stench at Abercrombie, but the headscarf itself isn’t what this case is about. [More]
In 2007, the state of Vermont passed a law forbidding the data mining of prescription drug records (i.e., which drugs are being prescribed and how frequently) for marketing purposes. But earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Vermont law interferes with drug makers’ right to free speech.