Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Overrules: Hijab Ban Not Discriminatory
Judicial Watch ^ | October 4, 2013

Posted on 10/04/2013 9:22:02 AM PDT by jazusamo

In a painful defeat for the Obama administration, a federal appellate court has overturned a judge’s ruling that a clothing retailer discriminated against a Muslim woman for denying her a job because she wore a religious headscarf known as a hijab.

The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws. Under Obama the agency has brought a number of similar lawsuits on behalf of Muslims around the country alleging violations of religious and civil rights. In this case the agency accuses a retail giant, Abercrombie & Fitch, of illegally discriminating against a Muslim woman by ruling her out for employment over her religious headscarf.

The woman, Samantha Elauf, applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in a Tulsa, Oklahoma mall in 2008. The company, which focuses on hip casual wear for consumers aged 18 to 22, has a policy against head covers of any kind for its employees. According to the EEOC it amounts to discrimination based on religion and that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are required to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs or practices of employees, the agency says, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on business.

A federal judge in Oklahoma agreed, ruling in 2011 that the law imposes an obligation on the employer to accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee unless it would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business. In his order the U.S. Chief District judge, Gregory Frizzell, said the store violated Elauf’s civil rights when it didn’t hire her. Elauf was awarded $20,000 in damages and the EEOC bragged that the court sent a clear message to employers.

But the retailer appealed and this week the Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in favor of the EEOC, saying the store’s policy is not discriminatory, but rather intended to promote and showcase its brand, which “exemplifies a classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing.” Abercrombie & Fitch contends that prohibiting head covers is critical to the health and vitality of its “preppy” and “casual” brand, according to the ruling.

Additionally, the federal appellate court found that Elauf’s religious headscarf only became an issue after she was ruled out as a candidate. “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her headscarf or `hijab’ for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice, due to a conflict between the practice and Abercrombie’s clothing policy,” the decision states.

The Obama administration has for years targeted this particular retailer over the hijab issue, filing lawsuits in different parts of the country. In fact, last month an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled that one of Abercrombie’s northern California stores violated a Muslim woman’s (Umme-Hani Khan) civil rights when it enforced the company’s not head cover policy. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California ruled that the retailer is liable for failing to accommodate the Muslim woman’s religious beliefs and may owe punitive damages.

“Reasonable jurors could determine that by offering Khan one option—to remove her hijab despite her religious beliefs—Abercrombie acted with malice, reckless indifference or in the face of a perceived risk that its actions violated federal law,” the judge writes in her 27-page opinion. Khan was represented by a renowned Islamic terrorist front group, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), that’s tight with the Obama administration.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abercrombieandfitch; eeoc; hijab; muslims
At least there's some sane judges in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
1 posted on 10/04/2013 9:22:02 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

It’s telling that they targeted Abercrombie & Fitch (though I have no love for them nor their stupid advertising).

It’s also indicative of the petty, vindictive, but at the same time dangerous and tyrannical, nature of this administration. It’s the worst combination imaginable-a bunch of people that petty and vindictive, but with the power to be dangerous in enforcing their pettiness, and the will to overstep the legal boundaries because no one in this country will stop them.


2 posted on 10/04/2013 9:27:02 AM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
There is no RELIGIOUS requirement to wear that thing.

When I was a child, it was required that we females wear something on the head WHEN WE ATTENDED OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH.

3 posted on 10/04/2013 9:27:30 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I for one am loving it.


4 posted on 10/04/2013 9:32:06 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

One baby step.

We shall see what happens next for other cases pending.


5 posted on 10/04/2013 9:32:22 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The Catholic Church has requirements for dress for clergy, religious (nuns) and the laity (modesty, femininity/gentlemanly).

None of which are prohibited by nor constraining to the Constitution, or, the law of the land, the term so popular this week among progressives.

And the Constitution does not interfere with what we do during Mass, and vice versa.


6 posted on 10/04/2013 9:34:16 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

Yes, this administration files lawsuits supposedly protecting civil rights for minorities and labor suits protecting unions but never to protect non minorities or business owners.


7 posted on 10/04/2013 9:35:17 AM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

8 posted on 10/04/2013 9:36:25 AM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

So when a judge in one district rules for A&F and a judge in another district rules for the muslim, does it have to go to a higher court next?


9 posted on 10/04/2013 9:38:56 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Maybe she should apply for a job here:


10 posted on 10/04/2013 9:42:50 AM PDT by Gamecock (Many Atheists take the stand: "There is no God AND I hate Him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
The most frightening part of this ruling:

"reckless indifference or in the face of a perceived risk that its actions violated federal law"

So questioning the applicability of a statute or Federal regulations with legal counsel means you're not showing sufficient deference to the almighty State.

That judge doesn't need to be impeached-- she needs to be dragged from the bench and tarred and feathered.

11 posted on 10/04/2013 9:48:55 AM PDT by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

No.

Unless of course the woman and her proxy wants to fight.

And I’m betting they do.


12 posted on 10/04/2013 9:50:12 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

Agreed, and she’s just one of 0bummer’s nominated judges.

These type people are also the type whom Holder has appointed in the DOJ, over 100 of them.


13 posted on 10/04/2013 9:57:33 AM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Bookmark


14 posted on 10/04/2013 10:00:42 AM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Why didn’t she wear her do-rag in her employment interview(s)?


15 posted on 10/04/2013 10:07:00 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Yep, she didn’t want the job, it was a setup for a lawsuit.


16 posted on 10/04/2013 10:12:57 AM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

I can’t understand Obama targeting A&F. Were they polled, I’d bet the % of Obama voters @ A&F is higher than in the black community.


17 posted on 10/04/2013 10:14:41 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I have taught members of my family to keep a long distance between them and people in hijab, whether they are in a bank or Walmart.

One never knows when they go Boooooooom!


18 posted on 10/04/2013 10:15:11 AM PDT by 353FMG ( I don't say whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

They don’t *have* to go to a higher court.

As I (a non-lawyer) understand it, the Appellate court’s decision would be binding on its district courts and ‘persuasive’ in others. Conflict between 2 Circuits is usually grounds for SCOTUS to take a case.


19 posted on 10/04/2013 10:23:33 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Abercrombie & Fitch? Judging from their catalogs, wearing clothes in general does not comport with their policies.


20 posted on 10/04/2013 10:33:30 AM PDT by shego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

yea but those hijab’s are great for a bad hair day...burkas’ mean you can go shopping in your jammies. I think I’ll try to find one for sale...


21 posted on 10/04/2013 10:36:04 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

She probably showed up to the interview without it, then showed up to work with it.


22 posted on 10/04/2013 11:24:53 AM PDT by MinstrelBoy (If you're a conservative today, you're a hero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson