Eight years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Americans see Muslims as facing more discrimination inside the U.S. than other major religious groups. Nearly six-in-ten adults (58%) say that Muslims are subject to a lot of discrimination, far more than say the same about Jews, evangelical Christians, atheists or Mormons.
A Muslim teen in Oklahoma is alleging that a manager at an Oklahoma Abercrombie & Fitch refused to hire her because her head scarf "didn't fit the chain's image." A Muslim civil rights group has filed a federal complaint on the girl's behalf, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that an employer must reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices.
If it's any consolation to the under-18 teen, not conforming to the "
Abercrombie image?" Definitely a compliment.
I would gladly eat at a restaurant where the workers ALL wore HEADSCARVES (or hairnets), like in the good old day when people CARED about HYGIENE, especially in food production and serving situations. Might cut down on the number of hairs falling into our food.
"Employers have a clear legal duty to accommodate the religious practices of their workers," said CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. "To deny someone employment because of apparent religious bias goes against long-standing American traditions of tolerance and inclusion."
In a letter to Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Michael Jefferies, CAIR-OK asked the company to 1) offer the Muslim applicant a formal apology, 2) clarify the company's policy on religious accommodation, and 3) institute workplace sensitivity and diversity training.
Abercrombie and Fitch have a market a certain lifestyle that is not really compatible with the teachings of Islam or Christianity.
"Defendant refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy, and, further, failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy," the lawsuit states.
Elauf went to the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Oklahoma, which helped her file a complaint with the EEOC in Oklahoma City.
The Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination based upon religion in hiring and in the terms of their employment, an EEOC press release says.
This isn't the first time the store's image policy has been called into question. In 2004, the EEOC waived the Civil Rights Act, saying the retailer had adopted a restrictive marketing image that limited the hiring of minorities, who did not conform to the image.
What are your thoughts on this?
True 
Comments (24)
screw that they should've given her the job
thats totally unfair =\
It's called a dress code. They have those in the real world. Equal-oppurtunity is a fine thing, but a kid with arms and neck covered in tattoos isn't going to work in PR for a computer corporation.
@crystal_air@xanga - 10 years from now they will. Times are changing.
The company should be allowed to maintain whatever workplace image they deem most beneficial to their commercial success. If that means turning down applicants because they don't conform to their needs, then so be it.
@ChevalierSeingal@datingish - You're probably right. But until then, companies and corps have rules.
@crystal_air@xanga - Absolutely!
@crystal_air@xanga - So true.
(Haven't we seen this featured enough already...?) Who cares? It's their company they can make whatever rules they want. :/
doom frm the realm of el caloom
smelly gel fume
separating cell wound
to melly mel boom
revelations in braile
resparations inhale
view nations fell
the shaking of a snake tale make do
I look like a girl form Abercrombie and Fitch but I dress and kick ass like the Marlboro Man. Madame Sophie, proprietor of the ultra sophisticated boutique, Chez Oui! Oui! would be wise not to hire someone like me.
I simply don't fit the image needed to market and sell her products. People cannot proclaim their religious attire, tattoos and body odor sacrosanct.
It is not practical or just for the secular world to be beholden to all the gazillions of religions that exist in the world.
I am still having a hard time reconciling someone with a sense of modesty that's rooted in religious devotion wanting to work at a place like Abercrombie, an industry which clearly does NOT uphold any religious ideals, Christian or otherwise...
I've been pretty much against Abercrombie for a while....
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - I agree lol
A&F has a certain look that they want their employees to have... w/ A&F fashion, the headscarf just wouldn't cut if for their case/clothing specific look... so in essence, A&F has a right to hire who they want (much like any other company) that would fit their sense of style (or lack thereof)... as much as I would like to say that it's wrong to NOT hire based upon looks... the sad thing is, that A&F has that standard of look that they want to portray... i'm not saying it's right, in fact it's completely and totally wrong... but it's the way A&F operates...
bleach blond A&F bunnies and jeans that cost way too much for how bad they look... and they kind of have the right to hire who they want as a company... but trust me, I DO NOT LIKE their policy on the stressing of a certain look...
I worked at hollister for a total of two weeks before i quit. they're owned by abercrombie and fitch. the dress code was honestly ridiculous!Â
-no eyeliner or eye make up except mascara
-no painted fingernails or toenails
-no curling your hair or hair styles that look "unnatural"
-you could only wear the colors that were in that season, which when i worked there were grey, navy and white only.
 -you didn't have to wear hollister clothes, but they had to fit the style and couldn't have any other labels on them
-you could only wear hollister flip flops or navy or white plain vans
-you never could wear black
-you could never wear jewelry
it was all part of their "look policy" and i had to go in like five times when i wasn't working so that they could take pictures of me? it was all really weird. and i was getting paid minimum wage to stand there and do nothing for a six hour shift. it was terrible.
They can hire or not hire whomever they want for whatever reason in my book.
A large part of selling clothes is selling a brand and an image. If a head scarf doesn't fit a company's image, why should they hire someone who won't take one off? Companies reject ugly women who want to be models and I don't see people crying about them being unfair (well, being taken seriously anyway).
From what I understand of the Muslim faith the use of headscarves are not a requirement,(a cultural practice from the middle east); but, Muslim women are required to dress modestly. However the definition of modest varies from culture to culture and it is this cultural variance that can cause problems.
As far as Abercrombie and Fitch is concerned their 'look & image' policy has got them into hot water before. In the UK they have been hauled up in an Industrial Tribunal ( a form of court) for constructive dismissal of a disabled young girl who was born (I believe) without a forearm. Because of this she wears a prosthetic. It was this 'look' that Abercrombie and Fitch disliked and they forced the local store (which to its credit did not have a problem) to deploy the girl in a non customer facing role i.e. shelve stacking etc.... in the stock room. This is blatant discrimination and is IMO against several laws not - least the Disability Discrimination Act.
Corporations must be constrained by law from abusing their wealth and power and riding rough shod over the people otherwise we are in danger of creating a Corporate Aristocracy which for 'sound economic reasons' will establish a tyranny.
Ubercrumby and _itch.
i have a great dislike for abercrombie & fitch, and this is one of many good reasons.
on a side note: who's surprised to see another head-covering post? not meeeeeee!
They don't hire obese people or people with bad cases of facial acne or people who look like sickly hermits because those people don't fit the image the company is trying to keep up. Why don't you fight for them, too?
If they're only looking for workers who know they're hot and sexy and not afraid to show it, why the hell is a girl who looks like a religious conservative complaining that her look wasn't up to par?
What I don't understand is why someone with a strict religious background would want to work there to begin with?? I don't like the image the company promotes but you can see by their ads what they're looking for. So why apply for a job you traditionally shouldn't even want? Sounds like the whole situation was instigated to cause a stir...and it did.
People here in America are lazy. They are willing to sue anyone if they are offended by someone. A&F might as well walk on egg shells to make people happy. It's a freakin dress code people. If you can't follow it, you won't get hired. It has nothing to do with religion. If she can't take off her head gear, then this is not the job for her... ta da the end. If people used their heads and weren't so dang sue happy we wouldn't be having one of these posts.
The lawsuit is probably fake. She wouldn't have been hired by A&F if she were under 18 in the first place. The kids' store, maybe.
I agree that the look policy is mildly retarded, but it's a dress code that everyone has to follow, just like in an office. Albeit we have to wear jeans and flip flops, but it's a dress code nonetheless and if you don't follow it, then really, it's your problem. Most of the time you know what you're getting yourself into when you apply to work at such places, and I clearly remember the look policy being discussed in my group interview.
It's the same with Hooters. A&F has an image that they want to project. If you can't fit that image, you can't work there.