A Perez
Gold Member
- Jan 26, 2015
- 1,090
- 223
- 140
It is not true that the hijab was i violation of the Look Policy, because the Supreme Court just told you that Hijab is an exception to such policy pursuant to Title Vll.1. Both are violation of the "look policy" (geez how many times do I need to repeat that?)Why would the full burka be any more of a hardship for A & F than the hijab ? Both are violation of the "look policy"This means any person wearing anything can sue the employer of their choice for wearing whatever they want even if it is not conforming to that employers rules. Sorry that's not gonna fly. People get sent home from school and asked to turn their shirts inside out at schools and other events. So why can this woman wear her headdress or other? So will A&F hire nuns next. I think not... just wait for the business to go under when that store is not having the foot traffic it once had. Where is this store Dubai?
No it does not.
It only - ONLY - means that the employer must make an allowance for "reasonable accommodation" for religion. Period. Religion and reasonable being the key terms. For example, this case:
Tattoos Facial Piercings and Employment Discrimination Law Office of Matthew Stoloff
In early 2001, Costco implemented a “no facial jewelry” policy to improve its professional image.I would guess that if a Muslim women insisted on a full burka, that would be regarded as an undue hardship for A&F, but a scarf is a reasonable accommodation.
When Costco began enforcing its policy in mid-2001, Ms. Cloutier explained for the first time that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and that her religion prohibited her from removing her eyebrow piercing.
Ms. Cloutier subsequently filed a complaint, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. For whatever reason, Ms. Cloutier made a decision not to return to work until the complaint was resolved. Approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, however, Costco terminated Ms. Cloutier for unexcused absences and for failing to follow the dress code.
At a mediation session, Costco offered Ms. Cloutier her job back, provided that Ms. Cloutier agreed to do one of two things: replace the eyebrow piercing with a clear plastic retainer (to prevent the hole from closing) or cover the eyebrow piercing with a bandage. (pp. 6-7) Ms. Cloutier refused either accommodation because she believed that removing or covering the eyebrow piercing violated the tenets of the Church of Body Modification.
The case went to federal court and Costco won.
On appeal in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that there was nothing in the tenets of the Church of Body Modification that required that “body modifications had to be visible at all times or that removing body modifications would violate a religious tenet.” (p. 5) As such, the accommodations Costco proposed would not “violate any of the established tenets” of the Church of Body Modification. (p. 9)
Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s opinion, holding that Costco offered a reasonable accommodation, and that creating an exception in the no facial jewelry policy would create an undue hardship for Costco. In other words, Costco must maintain a neat, clean and professional appearance to attract and retain customers; and creating an exception for Ms. Coultier would adversely affect that image. (p. 22)
Two words: "Reasonable Accommodation" (geez how many times do I need to repeat that?)
PS - I'm starting a new religion/church (Church of Protectionism). I will make up the rules as I go along. NO ONE can discriminate against my religion. I can do anything I want, and if anybody doesn't like it, TOUGH!
If they give me any trouble I'll sic the Supreme Court on them.
Well you know what sweetie? You have every right to do so...after all, every religion started somewhere with someone. However....I'm sad to inform you...no one said you could do "anything you want".
Human sacrifices and public nude orgies might not fly.
2. The SCOTUS said Elauf could do what SHE wanted (despite a company's rule against it), and they gave religion as the reason. So if she can get away with that, why not ANY religion, and as the title of this thread asks >> How far will the SCOTUS go ?
Law of the USA > Policy of a clothing store.