Abercrombie & Fitch sued after firing muslim lady

[nobodyknows]

Let's be honest, people here claiming companies have the right to change their policy, it A&F told employees who wear crosses to remove them, it would be...


blah...blah...religious freedom...blah

blah...blah...A&F are atheists...blah

LOL the place I used to work changed it's policy so much that instead of printing employee hand books they just went to a loose-leaf folder and issued a new page wi9th the changes on it.

 

[Gintaras]

A&F are marketing clothes. The Muslim headscarf is not part of their style and it shouldn't have to be.

Your headscarf-brains is messed up...

 

[Gintaras]

LAND OF THE FREE*!

*(except when not christian and in the way of business)

Agree, those so-called "free people" on here do nothing else, but to discuss about REGULATIONS

 

[polarmystery]

Some of the posters in this thread are EXTREMELY inhuman...such a terrible tragedy.

 

[Texashiker]

This is stupid. She deserved to be fired because the company has a certain style, they don't give two shits that she's Muslim.

Its stupid because the company hired her knowing that she wore a headscarf?

Its stupid that the company retained her for 4 months before there was an issue?

If there was an issue with the way she dressed, they should not have hired her to start with.

 

[tvarad]

In truth we all know thats all it was. Call a spade a spade. People she worked with, higher ups, didn't want a muslim working there. As we use to say back in the day, we know what time is.

A and F is a clothing brand whose USP is it's unique style and image. While I personally think only gullible people would pay twenty dollars for a cotton T-shirt that probably cost pennies to make just because it has their printed logo on it, they have every right to sell that image. Hence, a person who insists on wearing a head-scarf when working for them would be as incongruous as someone who insists on wearing a three-piece suit to work there simply because both don't fit that image. Her religion had nothing to do with it, however much she wants to spin it that way.

 

[tvarad]

Its stupid because the company hired her knowing that she wore a headscarf?

Its stupid that the company retained her for 4 months before there was an issue?

If there was an issue with the way she dressed, they should not have hired her to start with.

I would guess that they felt they were in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation when she applied for the job and erred on the side of caution, even though she didn't fit the image that they were selling. I am wishing that secular societies grow the gonads to say "Go fvck yourselves" when a religious group's medieval values run up against the modern world, like the Dutch are doing.

Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals

28 June 11 16:58 GMT

The Dutch lower house of parliament has passed a law effectively banning the ritual slaughter of animals, in a move condemned by Muslim and Jewish groups.

The legislation states that all animals must be stunned before being killed.
But the Islamic dhabiha and Jewish shechita methods of ritual slaughter require them to be fully conscious.
The legislation was proposed by an animal rights party with two MPs, which argued that failing to stun the animals subjected them to unnecessary pain.
But debate over the matter swiftly became a focus of animosity towards the Netherlands' 1.2 million-strong Muslim community. The country's Jewish population is comparatively small at 50,000.
Following months of debate a last minute concession was offered - the Muslim and Jewish communities will have a year to provide evidence that animals slaughtered by traditional methods do not experience greater pain than those that are stunned before they are killed.
However, observers say finding such proof will be virtually impossible.
The bill must still be approved by the upper house of parliament before it can become law.
Religious freedom
Before Tuesday's vote, the head of the Party for the Animals, Marianne Thieme, denied the bill was an attack on religious minorities.
She argued the law was necessary because scientists agreed that animals suffered pain or fear if they were not stunned before slaughter, and because current regulations allowed exceptions for ritual slaughter.
"If you stun an animal before it's been killed, the animal won't experience its own death," she told the BBC World Service. "If you have new techniques to ensure there's no unnecessary suffering then you have to use it."
"Three-thousand years ago, there were no anaesthetics," she added. "But since then we have developed more humane methods."
In a rare show of unity, the Muslim and Jewish communities condemned the legislation and said it infringed on their religious freedom.
"One of the first measures taken during the Occupation [by Nazi Germany during World War II] was the closing of kosher abattoirs," Dutch Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs told MPs during a debate in The Hague.
"If we no longer have people who can do ritual slaughter in the Netherlands, we will stop eating meat," he added.
The Party for the Animals said two million animals were subjected to ritual slaughter every year in the Netherlands, although the organisation Halal Correct said only 250,000 were killed without being stunned beforehand.
To make meat kosher for Jews or halal for Muslims, animals must be slaughtered while still awake, by swiftly cutting the main arteries and veins in their necks with sharp knives, and then allowing the blood to drain out.

 

[Oric]

If the worker was male, he would not be instantly noticable and would probably not be accused against a " dress code" and not be fired, but a female muslim worker gets attention and is fired. I read a lot of criticism in the west about Muslim socities segregating against women's rights (some of which I agree with), but here you practice what you criticise and help the segregation of female muslims by denying them equal work opportunities. Can anyone explain that ?

Anyone dare to comment ? Why are you supporting the segregation of Muslim women ?

 

[Infohawk]

Anyone dare to comment ? Why are you supporting the segregation of Muslim women ?

You're trying to hold a retarded aspect of Islam against third parties. It's retarded that women have to cover themselves and men don't. That's Islam's problem, not A&F's. It's not A&F's fault that a specific superstition is incompatible with their business.

 

[Oric]

You're trying to hold a retarded aspect of Islam against third parties. It's retarded that women have to cover themselves and men don't. That's Islam's problem, not A&F's. It's not A&F's fault that a specific superstition is incompatible with their business.

Islam is not a person and dressing is a personal choice ... Still we are in the dark why the employee's contract was terminated. As she has passed the entrance test it is most likely that she has been branded as a "potential threat" (because she is visibly distinguishable) later while an even more devoted Muslim male would go unnoticed. I don't understand the hypocrisy here ...

 

[classy]

A and F is a clothing brand whose USP is it's unique style and image. While I personally think only gullible people would pay twenty dollars for a cotton T-shirt that probably cost pennies to make just because it has their printed logo on it, they have every right to sell that image. Hence, a person who insists on wearing a head-scarf when working for them would be as incongruous as someone who insists on wearing a three-piece suit to work there simply because both don't fit that image. Her religion had nothing to do with it, however much she wants to spin it that way.

Did anyone actually read and COMPREHEND the story?

This is about her religion. She wore this scarf in the interview and several months on the job. She was told because she was wearing it for religous reasons, as long as she wore them with company colors, she was fine.

Then a district manager, I hope I don't to explain what they are, shows up and wants her to remove the scarf. The HR manager then along with the district manager now wants her to remove the scarf. This is all after the fact. She was hired and exempt because of religous tolerance to wear the scarf. She also worked back in the stockroom as well.

I have some experience in dealing with discrimination along age lines as a former Union rep years ago. I can be relatively sure of this, the fact the EEOC has taken up this case on her behalf, more than likely the company has violated this young womans rights. The EEOC doesn't take up cases on flimsy facts and heresay. At least from my experience they don't. They have reviewed many if not all the facts in this case. And even interviewed the individuals involved as well if possible. If they are willing to go court, they ain't going without some serious footing.

Now thats just my experience in dealing with them several years ago. And I contend there is nothing wrong with her head scarf. And I doubt most people even would be concerned with it. I could be wrong though..............as we are working with limited facts here.

 

[tvarad]

Did anyone actually read and COMPREHEND the story?

This is about her religion. She wore this scarf in the interview and several months on the job. She was told because she was wearing it for religous reasons, as long as she wore them with company colors, she was fine.

Then a district manager, I hope I don't to explain what they are, shows up and wants her to remove the scarf. The HR manager then along with the district manager now wants her to remove the scarf. This is all after the fact. She was hired and exempt because of religous tolerance to wear the scarf. She also worked back in the stockroom as well.

I have some experience in dealing with discrimination along age lines as a former Union rep years ago. I can be relatively sure of this, the fact the EEOC has taken up this case on her behalf, more than likely the company has violated this young womans rights. The EEOC doesn't take up cases on flimsy facts and heresay. At least from my experience they don't. They have reviewed many if not all the facts in this case. And even interviewed the individuals involved as well if possible. If they are willing to go court, they ain't going without some serious footing.

Now thats just my experience in dealing with them several years ago. And I contend there is nothing wrong with her head scarf. And I doubt most people even would be concerned with it. I could be wrong though..............as we are working with limited facts here.

Did you READ and COMPREHEND the responses that say that the management probably realized after hiring her that her scarf was scaring away the kind of customers that A & F had cultivated with their branding?

BTW, which govt agency do I file a gender-bias lawsuit with against followers of Islam for requiring females but not males to wear a head-scarf?

 

[jackstar7]

Did you READ and COMPREHEND the responses that say that the management probably realized after hiring her that her scarf was scaring away the kind of customers that A & F had cultivated with their branding?

Scaring them away... from the stockroom?

 

[Nebor]

Islam is not a person and dressing is a personal choice ... Still we are in the dark why the employee's contract was terminated. As she has passed the entrance test it is most likely that she has been branded as a "potential threat" (because she is visibly distinguishable) later while an even more devoted Muslim male would go unnoticed. I don't understand the hypocrisy here ...

I like where your head's at. We need a way to quickly and certainly identify Muslim men on sight as readily as we can Muslim women. What if they were required to wear some sort of symbol on all their clothes?

 

[Nebor]

Scaring them away... from the stockroom?

I know if I stumbled into the stock room and saw Janie Jihad back there, I'd think twice before buying anything. Do you know how many pounds of explosives she could pack into a pair of cargo shorts? And it would directly target upper middle class, all American kids. I think A&F may have headed off a major terrorist plot here. I wonder if they referred the case to DHS.

 

[tvarad]

I know if I stumbled into the stock room and saw Janie Jihad back there, I'd think twice before buying anything. Do you know how many pounds of explosives she could pack into a pair of cargo shorts? And it would directly target upper middle class, all American kids. I think A&F may have headed off a major terrorist plot here. I wonder if they referred the case to DHS.

Dude, don't be so paranoid. It's about scaring off potential customers who identify with the A & F look which, in their mind, does not include a woman in a headscarf. The equivalence would be a Goth dressed person with hair-spikes and nose rings being turned down from or kicked out of a job from a store selling Islamic oriented clothes like headscarves, hijabs or whatever.

Like Holland and Denmark (which are arguably some of the most socially progressive countries in the world) that are aggressively questioning such retrograde practices as hijabs, halal meat etc in their societies, the U.S. should also question aggressive displays of symbols of religion, especially in an environment where they threaten the viability of a business itself, as in this case.

 

[Red Dawn]

She is a muslim. That in and of itself is reason enough first, not to hire her, then, fire her if need be.

The above message could have been brought to you by your local Texas Chapter of the KKK whose motto probably is "if she ain't your sister she ain't no fun"

 

[Tom]

Religious freedom doesn't mean private companies have to pay you to practice your religion.

And the issue of hiring then firing doesn't matter either, there's no law against changing policies.

And the stockroom issue is somewhat unbelievable. If it's a stockroom at a retail location, why would a company want an employee that can never leave the stockroom because of the outfits she wears ? How is she going to put stock on the sales floor ?

 

[classy]

I know if I stumbled into the stock room and saw Janie Jihad back there, I'd think twice before buying anything. Do you know how many pounds of explosives she could pack into a pair of cargo shorts? And it would directly target upper middle class, all American kids. I think A&F may have headed off a major terrorist plot here. I wonder if they referred the case to DHS.

LOL
Janie Jihad.

The problem that most of these guys are missing is that they hired her and agreed to allow her to wear her scarf for religous purposes. To say oh we made a mistake and fire her for not taking it off is.....we'll they'll pay for this to go away. I am sure muslims buy A&F clothing too now.

 

[classy]

Religious freedom doesn't mean private companies have to pay you to practice your religion.

And the issue of hiring then firing doesn't matter either, there's no law against changing policies.

And the stockroom issue is somewhat unbelievable. If it's a stockroom at a retail location, why would a company want an employee that can never leave the stockroom because of the outfits she wears ? How is she going to put stock on the sales floor ?

If the policies violate a person's other freedoms, as it would appear in this case, then it is against the law.

People need to understand no company can just do whatever they want without consequences.

 

[tvarad]

LOL
Janie Jihad.

The problem that most of these guys are missing is that they hired her and agreed to allow her to wear her scarf for religous purposes. To say oh we made a mistake and fire her for not taking it off is.....we'll they'll pay for this to go away. I am sure muslims buy A&F clothing too now.

What if they hired her in good faith and store statistics showed that their footfalls reduced drastically after that? Should they commit businss Hara Kiri and go out of business?

 

[Nebor]

If the policies violate a person's other freedoms, as it would appear in this case, then it is against the law.

People need to understand no company can just do whatever they want without consequences.

I understand that they'll have to pay, but judging by the nature of the firing, they probably decided they'd rather pay the legal settlement than incur the cost\damage to their brand\store from her presence\bomb.

 

[Tom]

If the policies violate a person's other freedoms, as it would appear in this case, then it is against the law.

People need to understand no company can just do whatever they want without consequences.

It doesn't "appear" that way to me at all. There is no "right" to work at A&F.

 

[classy]

What if they hired her in good faith and store statistics showed that their footfalls reduced drastically after that? Should they commit businss Hara Kiri and go out of business?

Then you give them a nice severance and recommendation. But you don't change course, especially when you may be violating someone's religous rights after the fact, turn around and fire them.

 

[classy]

It doesn't "appear" that way to me at all. There is no "right" to work at A&F.

Employment at will does not circumvent labor laws.