Enlarge this imageA product for the entrance entrance into the Abercrombie & Fitch flagship store in New York City.Mario Tama/Getty Imageshide captiontoggle captionMario Tama/Getty ImagesA product in the front entrance into the Abercrombie & Fitch flagship store in New York City.Mario Tama/Getty ImagesNext term, the Supreme Court docket will hear a scenario that concerns the hiring habits of Abercrombie & Fitch. At i sue is whether the store discriminated against a woman because she wore a head scarf. Bloomberg explains:”Samantha Elauf was 17 in 2008 when she applied for a sales job at an Abercrombie Kids store in a mall in Tulsa. She had been told by a friend who worked for the retailer that wearing a hijab wouldn’t be a problemas long as it wasn’t black. Sales a sociates can’t wear black at Abercrombie. “During her interview, Elauf wore a head scarf https://www.raidersglintshop.com/Fred-Biletnikoff-Jersey and the a sistant manager scored her style a 6, which was good enough to be hired. When the a sistant manager sought approval for Elauf’s hijab, though, Trayvon Mullen Jersey a supervisor said the head scarf didn’t meet Abercrombie’s look policy. Hats are not allowed at Abercrombie. The supervisor later said he didn’t know that Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons. Elauf wasn’t hired.”The Equal Employment Opportunity Commi sion filed a lawsuit on Elauf’s behalf in 2009. She won, but an appeals courtroom reversed that judgement.The rub? The courtroom said Elauf should have asked for a spiritual exemption to wear a hijab when she was interviewed by the supervisor. That’s the central question in entrance of the Supreme Court. The Guardian explains:”The EEOC argues that if “actual knowledge” of an employee’s religious beliefs is required by employers, companies could discriminate against employees because of perceived spiritual practices, so long as they do not have explicit statements from an employee. “‘By holding that an employer may discriminate against a job applicant or employee based on practices that the employer correctly believes to be spiritual, so long as the employer does not have ‘actual knowledge’ of the need for religious accommodation … opened a safe harbour for spiritual discrimination,’ argued attorneys for the EEOC, referring to an appeals decisions in favour of Abercrombie.”This is not the first time, Abercrombie has been in trouble over alleged discrimination. In 2013, a Lamarcus Joyner Jersey judge ruled that it had discriminated against an employee after it fired a woman because her hijab did not conform on the allowed fashion detailed in its “look book.” Shortly thereafter, the company agreed to pay $71,000 and change its policy. Now, the company is required to tell its employees that it can make spiritual exemptions to its “look book.”

Supreme Courtroom Will Take into account Abercrombie’s Religious Discrimination Scenario


發佈留言必須填寫的電子郵件地址不會公開。 必填欄位標示為 *