The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favour of a Muslim woman who had been turned down for a job by clothing retailer Abercrombie and Fitch because she wore a headscarf.
Samantha Elauf had sought a job at the chain's Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2008, but a district manager decided she should not be hired because her headscarf did not comply with the retailer's dress code, court documents said.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a suit on behalf of Elauf, accusing the company of failing to accommodate her religious beliefs.
In a near-unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that religion is a "protected characteristic" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, called it a "historic" ruling," especially in light of "increased levels of Islamophobia" against the American Muslim community.
"The Supreme Court rightly underscored that a job applicant's religious beliefs and practices must play no role in an employer's hiring decision," said CAIR's staff attorney William Burgess.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will make this even worse. Careful what you wish for.
ReplyDelete8 to 1 decision, wow don't see that often, guess the whole court is supporting Muslims. Even Scalia on this one.
ReplyDeleteI would think that the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin would mean that they would have to hire her. They could not "not hire" her because she is Muslim. By the same token if their dress code is clearly stated in a handbook she would have to follow the dress regulations of the company. I am a Christian but that doesn't mean that I can go to work in retail and make them give me Sundays off to go to church even though that is a facet of my religion. Unless of course I am mistaken and I can demand Sundays off, because I'm sure the Civil Rights Act would want to apply to Christians as well as Muslims. Right?
ReplyDelete2:08 Sounds to me like you can demand Sundays off. They clearly stated that even though it was part of the company dress code she did not have to comply.
ReplyDeletemaybe she just sucked at sales and lied about why she didnt get hired.
ReplyDeleteThey come to this country, they want all our benefits, our jobs, our money, but wait they don't want to dress like we do, they want rules bent to benefit them. Stay in your own damn country and stay out of ours.
ReplyDeleteAnd if she was born here 5:29? Which she was,
ReplyDeleteReligious freedom cuts both ways... you can't cry that Christians need freedom then cry when Muslims do to.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe case and the decision are both more complicated, and less complicated, than previous commenters have described. The case goes back to a lower court for actual pre-trial/trial actions.
The prospective employer had scheduled her for training before changing its mind, allegedly because it inferred from her scarf that she followed a particular religious belief. They created their predicament.
My personal belief is that employers have the right to determine uniforms, hats or not, etc. to make the best impression on customers, operate safely, etc. In large measure courts back them but they may be required to provide reasonable accommodation for handicaps or religious observances. If a requested accommodation can't reasonably be met there may be grounds to deny it and not hire. (Silly hypothetical: someone wants to be a flight attendant but their beliefs prohibit leaving the ground).
The company painted itself into a corner on this. Stay tuned for what transpires next.