The US Supreme Court is considering a discrimination case brought by a Muslim woman denied a job at a leading fashion store because she was wearing a headscarf.
And a majority of the nine Court judges have signalled they will support her.
Sacha Payne has the details.
Samantha Elauf, then aged 17, was wearing a black headscarf when she showed up for an interview for a sales job in 2008 at a store in Tulsa, Oklahoma, of the international clothing firm, Abercrombie & Fitch.
According to papers filed in the Supreme Court, although she never explicitly voiced her religious views, the assistant store manager correctly assumed she was a Muslim.
The Court heard she was later told the company's rules would prohibit her from wearing a scarf, even if it was worn for religious reasons, because it would clash with the way it wanted its sales people to look.
After Samantha Elauf complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency, it sued the company on her behalf.
A jury eventually awarded her $20,000 in compensation, but that was thrown out by an appeals court which concluded that Ms Elauf had never asked the company to relax its policy against headscarves.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Ridiculous. The store should have a say in who they hire and who they don't. A headscarf doesnt' fit the Abercrombie & Fitch image or brand no more than an Amish young lady with a prayer cap on fit in with Victoria's Secret brand.
ReplyDeleteWith people like this it's about showing off and making a name for themselves more than anything. I hope her 15 minutes of fame turns into a curse for her. Experience is the best teacher for those who have these attention seeking issues.
The business (Abercrombie & Fitch) has every right to present an appearance appropriate with their line of business., 'fashion'. And, a GD Hijab or Al-Amira or Shayla seems counter to a 'fashion' company's public image. They were well within their rights to punt this applicant for the exact reasons they've stated.
ReplyDeleteIf the SC does in fact side with this muslim, it's just another 'below-the-belt' punch to the business community by our bought and payed for judicial system.
GINN
ReplyDeleteWhat else do you expect from a anti business administration.
No Ginn it's another below the belt punch for all Americans.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you all will stand up for your rights from now on huh??
ReplyDeletewho am I kidding, none of you people in this country give a damn about your rights... You don't even give a damn about your own selves enough to care about rights...
it is funny how people don't give a damn until it is tool late, and when it is not to late they resort to name calling and finger pointing and the usual let me wait for the white knight to stroll in and save the day for my lazy ass...
When will these people get with the program and be AMERICANS?!!! Obviously something in their country caused.them to migrate to America so why not embrace the culture here?
ReplyDeleteOK to forbid a women from wearing a cross? Or is just about freedom for Christians?
ReplyDeleteWell Boscov's does not discriminate. There is a woman working in full head dress and garb in small appliance. Go Salisbury!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDidn't click 'More'.
Appeals Court found she never asked for an 'accommodation' and thus wasn't entitled to relief. Instead she went to EEOC and they sued on her behalf. Get ready for SC to find this 'technicality' is relevant.
Employers are required to weigh whether requested accommodations are viable or unduly burdensome, but are not required to solicit for requests, ala "Gee, is there anything we need to change to make our workplace suit you?"