[bootlegga]

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO - A former stockroom worker for Abercrombie & Fitch Co. sued the clothing retailer in federal court Monday, saying she was illegally fired after refusing to remove her Muslim headscarf while on the job.

Hani Khan said a manager at the company's Hollister Co. store at the Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo hired her while she was wearing her hijab. The manager said it was OK to wear it as long as it was in company colours, Khan said.

Four months later, the 20-year-old says a district manager and human resources manager asked if she could remove the hijab while working, and she was suspended and then fired for refusing to do so.

It's the latest employment discrimination charge against the company's so-called "look policy," which critics say means images of mostly white, young, athletic-looking people. The New Albany, Ohio-based company has said it does not tolerate discrimination.

Still, Abercrombie has been the target of numerous discrimination lawsuits, including a federal class action brought by black, Hispanic and Asian employees and job applicants that was settled for $40 million in 2004. The company admitted no wrongdoing, though it was forced to implement new programs and policies to increase diversity.

"Growing up in this country where the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, I felt let down," Khan, now a college student studying political science, said at a news conference. "This case is about principles, the right to be able to express your religion freely and be able to work in this country."

Abercrombie defended its record in a comment provided to The Associated Press, saying diversity in its stores "far exceeds the diversity in the population of the United States."

"We comply with the law regarding reasonable religious accommodation, and we will continue to do so," said Rocky Robbins, the company's general counsel. "We are confident that when this matter is tried, a jury will find that we have fully complied with the law."

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco comes after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in September that Khan was fired illegally. Khan's lawsuit was filed in conjunction with the EEOC's lawsuit.

It is not the first time the company has been charged with discriminating against Muslim women over the wearing of a hijab.

In 2009, Samantha Elauf, who was 17 at the time, filed a federal lawsuit in Tulsa, Okla., alleging the company rejected her for a job because she was wearing a hijab.

The EEOC filed another lawsuit for the same reason, saying the company denied work to a hijab-wearing woman who applied for a stocking position in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store at the Great Mall in Milpitas, Calif.

Khan's attorney said her client is looking to get Abercrombie to change its "look policy" to allow religious headscarves to be worn by employees, and for unspecified damages. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal and state civil rights and employment laws.

"Abercrombie prides itself on requiring what it calls a natural classic American style. But there's nothing American about discriminating against someone because of their religion," said Araceli Martinez-Olguin, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center.

"Such a look policy cannot be squared with our shared values. No worker should have to choose between their religion and their job."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/muslim-woman-s ... 27681.html

[Brenda]

When there is no reason given, you can never claim they didn't hire you because you wore a hijab.
When you are hired while wearing one, and told that that's ok as long as it is in company colours, and you get fired by your boss's boss, then maybe it is time Abercrombie made clear to everybody what their policy is.
I think this lady has a case and I hope she wins.

[andyt]

I said no. They hired her with the headscarf on and only later asked her to remove it. Makes no sense. Also she was not in a position in the public's eye. You want to wear a scarf on your head that doesn't interfere with your job in any way, it should not be the employer's business.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Yep, A&F kinda screwed the pooch on this one.

[BartSimpson]

She's a hypocrite. Observant Muslims don't sell alcohol because it is not halal and if she is the observant Muslim she says she is then she's not allowed to sell clothes that are not halal.

An observant Muslim would not have applied for a job at a firm whose catalogues have been found to be child porn in a few states. So her argument about her hijab is void.

She's just wearing it to be a PITA.

[Brenda]

Not the point.

[peck420]

Brenda is right, Bart.

Whatever her personal beliefs are is irrelevant.

She was hired wearing it, and was even told that it was okay as long as she followed specific colours. There is no mention that she did not follow the instructions given to her.

If her employers can not get their own policies straight, that is not her problem, and she should not be punished for it.

[Dragon-Dancer]

Maybe she's observant of all tenets and maybe she's not, still doesn't change the basic facts that she was hired when they knew full well that she would wear a hijab and then fired when suddenly told she couldn't. Wearing a hijab while serving customers doesn't in any way infringe on her ability to do her job.

Fixed tenets

[CDN_PATRIOT]

BartSimpson wrote:

She's a hypocrite. Observant Muslims don't sell alcohol because it is not halal and if she is the observant Muslim she says she is then she's not allowed to sell clothes that are not halal.

An observant Muslim would not have applied for a job at a firm whose catalogues have been found to be child porn in a few states. So her argument about her hijab is void.

She's just wearing it to be a PITA.

I'm actually going to agree with Bart for once. Besides, there are always three sides to every story: Your side, their side, and the truth. You can bet the truth has been skewed by one or both parties in this.

-J.

[andyt]

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

Maybe she's observant of all tenants and maybe she's not, still doesn't change the basic facts that she was hired when they knew full well that she would wear a hijab and then fired when suddenly told she couldn't. Wearing a hijab while serving customers doesn't in any way infringe on her ability to do her job.

I agree with this post, except that how she observes tenants in her properties has nothing to do with this issue. I think you meant tenets. (I'm sensitive to this issue because I once had an instructor correct my tenets (which fit the context) to tenants which made no sense. It's no fun when the instructor is more ignorant than you.)

[Wada]

Based on the story I said NO.

[OnTheIce]

peck420 wrote:

Brenda is right, Bart.

Whatever her personal beliefs are is irrelevant.

She was hired wearing it, and was even told that it was okay as long as she followed specific colours. There is no mention that she did not follow the instructions given to her.

If her employers can not get their own policies straight, that is not her problem, and she should not be punished for it.

That's just her claim, she may or may not have worn it during the interview.

My guess is she also signed a employment contract in regards to rules and dress code.

As Bart said above, you can't pound the religious drum when you knowingly work for a company that goes against the beliefs you are claiming to represent with your head dress.

[Wada]

OTH that is her claim and you do not have the right to change the story to suit your own ends. Stick to the story at hand.

[Dragon-Dancer]

andyt wrote:

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

Maybe she's observant of all tenants and maybe she's not, still doesn't change the basic facts that she was hired when they knew full well that she would wear a hijab and then fired when suddenly told she couldn't. Wearing a hijab while serving customers doesn't in any way infringe on her ability to do her job.

I agree with this post, except that how she observes tenants in her properties has nothing to do with this issue. I think you meant tenets. (I'm sensitive to this issue because I once had an instructor correct my tenets (which fit the context) to tenants which made no sense. It's no fun when the instructor is more ignorant than you.)

So noted, spellchecker lied to me apparently.

[andyt]

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

andyt wrote:

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

Maybe she's observant of all tenants and maybe she's not, still doesn't change the basic facts that she was hired when they knew full well that she would wear a hijab and then fired when suddenly told she couldn't. Wearing a hijab while serving customers doesn't in any way infringe on her ability to do her job.

I agree with this post, except that how she observes tenants in her properties has nothing to do with this issue. I think you meant tenets. (I'm sensitive to this issue because I once had an instructor correct my tenets (which fit the context) to tenants which made no sense. It's no fun when the instructor is more ignorant than you.)

So noted, spellchecker lied to me apparently.

Spellchecker is stupid, it doesn't know what your meaning is, just how to spell words correctly. And the one that comes on CKA is really dumb, it doesn't know many legit words that I have spelled correctly, so I have to verify at another site.