Posted on 02/24/2015 8:35:45 AM PST by GIdget2004
The people who ran the Abercrombie & Fitch Kids store at a Tulsa mall in 2008 were inclined to hire Samantha Elauf.
The 17-year-old got high marks in her first interview for a sales position on such criteria as “appearance and sense of style” and “outgoing and promotes diversity.”
Part of Elauf’s appearance, however, was the headscarf she wore because she’s a Muslim. The store employees in charge of hiring thought it might conflict with the company’s “Look Policy” so they called the district manager for advice. He told them not to hire her.
The company has been in a fight with the U.S. government ever since.
It’s almost over, though. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday and render a decision some time this summer on whether Elauf was a victim of religious discrimination.
“This is an extremely important issue that affects many people of different faiths,’’ said Gene Schaerr, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing 15 religious and civil rights organizations that filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing Elauf.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the clothing chain in federal court in Tulsa and won — Elauf was later awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages — but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Abercrombie store didn’t discriminate because Elauf never told the company she wore the hijab for religious reasons and would have to wear it at work.
That, the court said, was in keeping with the government’s general policy that businesses shouldn’t ask job applicants about their religious beliefs.
It falls now to the justices to decide how explicit a job applicant or employee must be in expressing the need for a religious “accommodation” — or just whose responsibility it is.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
It says right in the text on this page that "Elauf never told the company she wore the hijab for religious reasons and would have to wear it at work." So it looks like she set them up. Taqiyya.
If she didn't wear it to the interview, she must have intended to give a false impression. If you lie on a resume, you're toast. Why should this be different?
To be honest, I thought she didn’t wear it to the “first interview” either, but reading the article made me realize she did, although it wasn’t made clear. I was actually asking to see if maybe I missed something.
She may as well have applied for a job at the Tilted Kilt. It’s A&F, for pete’s sake.
They wouldn't bother stepping into a test case — their religion encourages them to lie to the infidel; and everything they do is carefully polticized. They would bake it and advertise that they baked it. They would probably get the mayor of the town to cut a ribbon or give them the key to the city for baking it.
Now, I got to find my Brasso so I can polish away that smudge on my halo. . .
;-)
If you can not-hire a person with gang tattoos on their face, you can not-hire a future terrorist who wears a rag on her head.
Post 20 and 27.
No because there is no religious requirement to wear the hijab to work in a Western establishment.
It's a part of the modern Islamist revolution. Middle Eastern countries in the 1960s didn't even have it to mandatory degree of today.
Only thing that would make this better is if the store was in the Mall of America...
Looks like a qualified beekeeper.
“outgoing and promotes diversity.”
Once again, the sick cancer of “diversity” rears it’s ugly head.
How many lawsuits? How many diversity classes (re-education)?How many rapes? How many murders until Americans realize they are being targeted directly by an onslaught of feral 3rd worlders who will eventually replace them and their children?
Why is it that the government considers this possible religious discrimination because this person is following her religious beliefs and is not getting a job because of it. Yet, the government does not consider it religious discrimination when a baker follows her religious beliefs and the government wants to force her to provide a specific service for someone that violates her belief? That is the liberal world for you.
Were it me, I’d just never have called the terrorist back. Never responded. Made a memo-to-file her interview was lacking and let it go at that.
Slave garb is not good advertisement for any retail store if they want women to shop there.
Kind of hard for me to pick sides on this one. On the one hand, I don’t particularly care for Muslims, and I think that having one as an employee is just asking for trouble. But on the other hand, if the girl had been wearing a cross and had been refused employment, I’d be furious at the blatant religious discrimination. But on still another hand, I do believe that companies should have the right to have their employees present themselves in whatever way the company deems proper for their business needs. And on yet another hand, I can’t stand Abercrombie & Fitch and I would laugh gleefully if their business were wrecked.
I think I’ll just toss my hands into the air on this one.
Do women find you good-looking? Or do they just find you “handy”?
I was just thinking of that poor woman in Washington St, who is about to be financially destroyed and lose her florist business, in regard to this case.
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.