Amira Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I thought yesterday's US Supreme Court hearing about a Muslim woman not getting hired because she wore a hijab to an interview, but didn't ask for a religious accommodation to wear it, was interesting. Here are a few articles about it from several different sources (take your pick): The Atlantic NPR Wall Street Journal Al Jazeera Most people seem to think the SC will rule against Abercrombie. Do you think job applicants should need to ask for a religious accommodation before being hired? Can interviewers ask about it? What do you think about the case? And do you want to be cool enough to wear Abercrombie clothing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't know anything about this particular case, but if the employees are required to wear Abercrombie brand clothing to work and Abercrombie doesn't sell head coverings, I can understand why she wasn't hired if she refused to comply. OTOH, if there is no such requirement and they came right out and told her they weren't hiring her because of her hijab, that would be entirely different. The problem with some of these situations is that unless the company has a history of discrimination or witnesses hear the hiring manager specifically mention the clothing issue, there is no way to know whether the person would have been hired even if she was wearing something entirely different. If ten people apply for the same job and are all equally qualified, the hiring manager is going to choose the one he or she thinks would do the best job, so nine people aren't going to be hired. If one of them decides she was discriminated against because of her clothing choices, that is her opinion but may very well be far from the truth. Edited to add: I just read the article from The Atlantic. It's a tough call, but I have to say that I know this young woman is trying to make a point, but I don't understand why she wouldn't simply apply elsewhere. It's not like Abercrombie is the only store at the mall, and that company is known for only wanting to hire people with a certain look. Now that the horrible weasel CEO has been replaced, I hope things will change, but I have my doubts. Abercrombie isn't a particularly "cool" brand at this point, anyway. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'm not understanding how anyone would not know that a headscarf of that type is not related to religion. Where have these people been? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 She was specifically told that she wasn't hired because of her hijab (and I can't believe anyone told her that!). Abercrombie is arguing that she should have asked for a religious accommodation, but since she didn't, they didn't have to hire her because they didn't want to assume her hijab was religious clothing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I had not heard of this case. I could see part of the interview process, having the applicant review a dress code policy and asking them to agree or request exception. This gets the employer out of asking a specific religion question, which is a big no no. I have seen teen girls in head scarves wear this brand of clothing. They wear the t shirts over a long sleeve plain to shirt.Teens want to be in fashion whether or not they have religious restrictions and there are a lot of girls work hard to stay within the bounds of required modesty and stay current with fashion. So, I do think it would be possible to comply with a requirement to wear the brand and wear a head scarf. And having seen it done, I think Abercrombie could be loose a big market (at least where I live) if people feel they've been discriminated against. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 She was specifically told that she wasn't hired because of her hijab (and I can't believe anyone told her that!). Abercrombie is arguing that she should have asked for a religious accommodation, but since she didn't, they didn't have to hire her because they didn't want to assume her hijab was religious clothing. Abercrombie was stupid. I can't imagine that they came right out and told her she wasn't hired because of the hijab. (I'm not saying the girl is lying; I'm just shocked that Abercrombie would be idiotic enough to set themselves up for a lawsuit.) Why wouldn't they simply accept her application, interview her, and then hire someone else instead? Why would they give her a reason? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So it's OK to discriminate for a prohibited reason as long as you don't tell the victim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedClams Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I can't understand why anyone who values modesty would have anything to do with that store. That notwithstanding, I think A&F won't win this. I don't see how they could rationalize using a head scarf as a reason not to hire someone. It seems outrageous to me. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So it's OK to discriminate for a prohibited reason as long as you don't tell the victim? No one has said that. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Why wouldn't they simply accept her application, interview her, and then hire someone else instead? Why would they give her a reason? Are you suggesting that this is somehow better than telling her why she wasn't hired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Are you suggesting that this is somehow better than telling her why she wasn't hired? Of course not. I'm saying that it would have been better for Abercrombie from a legal standpoint. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 Hiring 101: If you're going to not hire someone for discriminatory reasons, you never tell her the real reason she wasn't hired. Which makes discrimination in hiring really hard to prove. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Abercrombie has been sued for discriminatory hiring practices before. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-18-04.cfm http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2013/05/24/abercrombie-fitch-different/ They are so stupid with the stupid racism and discrimination issues I think they do it on purpose at this point. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 My brother worked for Abercrombie for a while. Of course he was in the stock room in the back because his long dreadlocks didn't match with the Abercrobie handbook. Apparently, from what I understand, they want their floor salespeople to look more like models and their idea of a "perfect" Abercrombie look. They are known for really horrible lookism in hiring and in employment opportunities. Bad company. Stay away from them. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momacacia Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This ^^^ is exactly what a babysitter of ours who works there has said. She was essentially asked to interview/work there. Tall, thin with long blonde hair. Her mom said they're basically paid to walk around the store modeling the clothes; not necessarily to help customers get clothes or figure out fashions. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 My niece's husband is a vice president of the company. Don't ask me how I feel about that since I'm no fan of Abercrombie. At any rate, they do make it VERY known during the interview process that when they hire for the stores, they are not hiring sale associates per se but amateur models. They expect women to be blond or light brown haired though they have hired a few red heads and brunettes, very slim, over a certain height threshold, long waisted, and not too curvy. Long hair on females is an absolute must. It's a written policy, and candidates are made aware. So, IF she was given the written policy on looks in order to work that mall job, then the hijab would absolutely be discriminated against. Her hair has to show, and my understanding from him, below shoulder length and not worn in an updo. The hijab would cover her hair which is not their look. Again, not defending the company because over the years I've been pretty disgusted with them for a lot of reasons, and we never bought their clothes for dd. But, they are pretty upfront about the look for modeling their clothes, and the fact that their sales associates are actually modeling. Taken in that context, we all know there are legal protections for discrimination in modeling. Shoot, even Hooters can legally discriminate against boob size because showing off hoots is how they make their money. Hard to say how the case will go down because so much will depend on whether or not they successfully defend their "look" policy. I just do not like this company at all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 The woman said she wasn't award of the "look" policy and actually scored high enough against the policy to be hired because the interviewer didn't have a problem with the hijab, but someone higher up lowered her score because of the hijab. It's also my understanding based on other articles I've read that Abercrombie has allowed yarmulkes/kippahs to be worn by their employees. I can see that there would be concerns about the interviewer bringing up religious accommodation during the interview, but, as one SC justice pointed out, if the no caps policy had been mentioned in the interview (as seems reasonable, given the hijab that was being worn), the religious issue could have been approached in a sensitive way. But I'm glad that it appears that the SC is going to rule against Abercrombie because it doesn't seem reasonable for a interviewee to know all the company policies that might be a religious problem before she's even hired. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 My niece's husband is a vice president of the company. Don't ask me how I feel about that since I'm no fan of Abercrombie. At any rate, they do make it VERY known during the interview process that when they hire for the stores, they are not hiring sale associates per se but amateur models. They expect women to be blond or light brown haired though they have hired a few red heads and brunettes, very slim, over a certain height threshold, long waisted, and not too curvy. Long hair on females is an absolute must. It's a written policy, and candidates are made aware. So, IF she was given the written policy on looks in order to work that mall job, then the hijab would absolutely be discriminated against. Her hair has to show, and my understanding from him, below shoulder length and not worn in an updo. The hijab would cover her hair which is not their look. Again, not defending the company because over the years I've been pretty disgusted with them for a lot of reasons, and we never bought their clothes for dd. But, they are pretty upfront about the look for modeling their clothes, and the fact that their sales associates are actually modeling. Taken in that context, we all know there are legal protections for discrimination in modeling. Shoot, even Hooters can legally discriminate against boob size because showing off hoots is how they make their money. Hard to say how the case will go down because so much will depend on whether or not they successfully defend their "look" policy. I just do not like this company at all. But they are not models and the company cannot discriminate on hiring as if they are, that is illegal and they have been punished for that before. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.