Abercrombie & Fitch sued after firing muslim lady

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
classy said:
Employment at will does not circumvent labor laws.
Click to expand...

The question is whether her religious attire affected the conduct of the business itself. If it did, as it seems to be in this case, then the cpmpany should have the right to deny employment because it would be detrimental to their business. It would be no different from a surfer dude with long hair, shorts and sandals being denied a job that required him to be in a suit.
 
C

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
tvarad said:
The question is whether her religious attire affected the conduct of the business itself. If it did, as it seems to be in this case, then the cpmpany should have the right to deny employment because it would be detrimental to their business. It would be no different from a surfer dude with long hair, shorts and sandals being denied a job that required him to be in a suit.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz, how many times do I have keep saying the same thing. The company hired and OKed her religious attire, end of story. The complaints came from a district manager, backed by a HR manager. If she did not want to take off her scarf after the fact, then the company had a right to part ways with a several months severance I would believe. But they did not have the right to fire her. And if they did fire her for the reason you state, then that would be clear discrimination based on religion. No question. Now the story would be different, if she converted after being an employee and was told the head scarf would not be permitted.

But I would wager they will settle, because they have very little shot to win this case, if the facts presented are accurate.
 
T

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
classy said:
Gee whiz, how many times do I have keep saying the same thing. The company hired and OKed her religious attire, end of story. The complaints came from a district manager, backed by a HR manager. If she did not want to take off her scarf after the fact, then the company had a right to part ways with a several months severance I would believe. But they did not have the right to fire her. And if they did fire her for the reason you state, then that would be clear discrimination based on religion. No question. Now the story would be different, if she converted after being an employee and was told the head scarf would not be permitted.

But I would wager they will settle, because they have very little shot to win this case, if the facts presented are accurate.
Click to expand...

You're being a moron. Even the govt agency initiating legal action is not commenting on A & F's motive, so stop making up facts up to suit your argument. I sincerely hope that A&F pursues this case to closure instead of being terrorized into submission by the likes of CAIR, who are egging the agency on to suit their own vested interests. Businesses should not be black-mailed into taking decisions detrimental to their own viability, as is clearly the case here.
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
If a private establishment has the ability to fire someone because they hold religious beliefs that require them to dress/act in a way that may or may not affect their job performance and possibly drive away customers, does that mean a pharmacy can fire an employee for refusing to fill a monrning-after prescription due to religious beliefs?

Can't have it both ways you know...
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Nebor said:
I'm guessing they will, since they've done this before. They made the calculation that it would be worth firing her and MAYBE getting sued and then paying out vs. the cost of keeping her on.
Click to expand...

I am sure it's really expensive to keep her working compared to paying out tens of millions like they did last time. But hey, if they want to make her a millionaire over near minimum wage job, that's their call.
 
A

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
her209 said:
If a private establishment has the ability to fire someone because they hold religious beliefs that require them to dress/act in a way that may or may not affect their job performance and possibly drive away customers, does that mean a pharmacy can fire an employee for refusing to fill a monrning-after prescription due to religious beliefs?

Can't have it both ways you know...
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference here: mainly the effect on performing your job.

Your 'may or may not' makes the situations different. I don't see how wearing a headscarf prevents you from stocking shelves (or even selling clothes for that matter, but that's not what she did). Now, if she refused to stock bikinis because it offended her sense of decency, then it would be similar to the pharmacy case (and I would agree with her getting canned).
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
actuarial said:
There's a huge difference here: mainly the effect on performing your job.

Your 'may or may not' makes the situations different. I don't see how wearing a headscarf prevents you from stocking shelves (or even selling clothes for that matter, but that's not what she did). Now, if she refused to stock bikinis because it offended her sense of decency, then it would be similar to the pharmacy case (and I would agree with her getting canned).
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the bigger point. If you have no religious freedom at work, as argued by some in this thread, except for what the company allows, then employees who refuse to follow company policy should be allowed to be fired. That should be true when you refuse to remove your religious garb. It should also be true when you refuse to fill a prescription.
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
actuarial said:
I don't see how wearing a headscarf prevents you from stocking shelves (or even selling clothes for that matter, but that's not what she did).
Click to expand...

Do you really think selling clothes in this country just amounts to putting clothes on display? Branding and image is huge. Wearing a religious garment is simply not part of A&F's image nor should it have to be.
 
Nebor

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
senseamp said:
I am sure it's really expensive to keep her working compared to paying out tens of millions like they did last time. But hey, if they want to make her a millionaire over near minimum wage job, that's their call.
Click to expand...

The potential damage to their brand among their primary customer demographic (WASPs) could be enormous. And IIRC they only payed out around $5m last time, peanuts to a company like A&F when you consider how much money they're making off of aforementioned WASPs.

You also have to consider that for every time this happens and makes the news, it probably happens a dozen times without news coverage or lawsuits. So it's a pretty smart gamble on A&Fs part.
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Nebor said:
The potential damage to their brand among their primary customer demographic (WASPs) could be enormous. And IIRC they only payed out around $5m last time, peanuts to a company like A&F when you consider how much money they're making off of aforementioned WASPs.

You also have to consider that for every time this happens and makes the news, it probably happens a dozen times without news coverage or lawsuits. So it's a pretty smart gamble on A&Fs part.
Click to expand...

We are talking about San Mateo, CA. There are more Muslims than WASPs shopping at A&F there. It's only "smart" until people smell a winning lottery ticket and start suing more often.
 
Nebor

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
senseamp said:
We are talking about San Mateo, CA. There are more Muslims than WASPs shopping at A&F there. It's only "smart" until people smell a winning lottery ticket and start suing more often.
Click to expand...

Well presumably they'll hire fewer and fewer people that appear to be Muslim.
 
A

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Infohawk said:
Do you really think selling clothes in this country just amounts to putting clothes on display? Branding and image is huge. Wearing a religious garment is simply not part of A&F's image nor should it have to be.
Click to expand...

That one comes a lot closer to an actual debate, but it also digs a lot deeper than the current issue (since she actually only stocked shelves).

Would branding/image concerns allow you to only hire people of a certain race? Only women or men?
 
A

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Infohawk said:
Religion is a choice. Race is not.
Click to expand...

But they are protected by employment laws in the same manner aren't they?

I'm no expert on US law though. A quick google search gave me the civil rights act of 1964 which seems to support what I'm saying here.
 
Nebor

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
senseamp said:
A&F is busy establishing a track record that will make it easier.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear from the dozens of race based hiring lawsuits filed against them that they just don't care. They always settle. Their profits seem to reflect that this strategy is working well for them.
 
W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
senseamp said:
We are talking about San Mateo, CA. There are more Muslims than WASPs shopping at A&F there.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are getting that information but I live here and shop in that store. In fact, it is my daughter's favorite clothing store, or was for many years. What you're saying is patently false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom