Tuesday - June 02, 2015

America catches up as the supremes endorse the 5th century.

From the BBC … Just another bag of bull**** from another court. This time the supremes.  Nobody denied her a job because of religion. Abercrombie has (or they once had) a very specific dress code.  An image.  And a head scarf was not a part of that image.  But our glorious supreme court got suckered on this.

Hey …. if a company is paying out money and is in the field of fashion in some way, then why don’t they have a right to insist on a dress code?
This is not the first time Abercrombie has been in court on the issue of appearance. 

Some years ago when we were living in Riverside, Calif., this rather large pile of flab and cellulite applied for a job at a gym in Ca.  They refused to hire her as they thought her mass of flab would not be in keeping with their image of health.

So she sued and of course she won. 

Was a time when someone like that would see an incentive and loose weight but no.
In the modern world, just kick off ur shoes, make yourself comfy and sue.

H/T BBC News

US Muslim in Abercrombie hijab court win

“I was a teenager who loved fashion and was eager to work for Abercrombie & Fitch,” said Ms Elauf in a statement after the court released its decision.
Ms Elauf was 17 years old when the discrimination occurred during a job interview at a shop in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 2008.

“Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights”, she said after the ruling.

In an 8-1 verdict, the court ruled that Abercrombie had violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.

Groups representing Jews, Sikhs, Christian, gay, and lesbian rights organisations filed papers in court in solidarity with Ms Elauf, who told reporters she sought to protect the rights of people of all faiths at work.

In 2013 Abercrombie & Fitch Co settled with two American Muslim women who were targeted by management for their use of the hijab. Each woman was awarded $71,000 (£47,000).

Abercrombie & Fitch Co has since reversed its policy on headscarves.

Abercrombie & Fitch argued that Elauf couldn’t succeed without first showing that the employer had “actual knowledge” of her need for a religious accommodation. But the Court disagreed, and sent the case back down to the lower court for further consideration.

The controversy began in 2008 when then 17-year-old Samantah Elauf sought a job with the retailer. Prior to the interview, Elauf was nervous she might not be hired because of the black headscarf that she wears for religious reasons. She interviewed with assistant manager Heather Cooke, however, and although she was told that the company’s “look policy” meant she shouldn’t wear a lot of make up, black clothing or nail polish, her head scarf never came up.

But after the interview Cooke sought approval from her district manager. She said she told the manager that she assumed Elauf was Muslim and figured she wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The manager said Elauf shouldn’t be hired because the scarf was inconsistent with the look policy that bans head gear.

bbc

What the article here hasn’t mentioned and come to think of it, neither did CNN in theirs,
is that A & F says her head scarf conflicted with their “Look Policy,” which derives from its focus on what the company calls its
East Coast collegiate style.

So the bottom line is that the folks who foot the bill have no rights. 

Posted by peiper     on 06/02/2015 at 08:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner