or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 156

post #2326 of 5117
So how does A&F's dress code differ from say Hooters or Tilted Kilt?
post #2327 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

So how does A&F's dress code differ from say Hooters or Tilted Kilt?

 

Bona fide occupational qualification is a legal defense that employers can raise in the employment discrimination context that allows them to hire people based on traits that are normally prohibited. For example, a bar posts a job ad seeking "a male bathroom attendant." A woman applies and is rejected because she is female. She sues. The bar can use the BFOQ defense, saying that being female is a necessary trait to perform the main job duties.

 

It's a very tough standard, and there's some important stipulations, like the employer being upfront about those qualifications. A&F won't meet it for its dress code. I don't think there's case law on it, but Hooters likely has a decent argument to make.

post #2328 of 5117
Thread Starter 
If the US was only more like socialist France she would have lost her case.
post #2329 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You would think some degree of knowledge is required to form the requisite intent, but maybe not under the right circumstances. One might infer based on my apparent hostility toward drug users that I didn't hire the guy because I wouldn't want to deal with dopers whether they were religiously inspired or not.

You are perpetuating doper-raping culture.
post #2330 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

Bona fide occupational qualification is a legal defense that employers can raise in the employment discrimination context that allows them to hire people based on traits that are normally prohibited. For example, a bar posts a job ad seeking "a male bathroom attendant." A woman applies and is rejected because she is female. She sues. The bar can use the BFOQ defense, saying that being female is a necessary trait to perform the main job duties.

It's a very tough standard, and there's some important stipulations, like the employer being upfront about those qualifications. A&F won't meet it for its dress code. I don't think there's case law on it, but Hooters likely has a decent argument to make.

Thanks. I always figured they had some kind of special exception but didn't understand how it works or why they can get it but not others.
post #2331 of 5117
Interesting article regarding the Abercrombie & Fitch case


http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/02/why-would-a-devout-muslim-want-to-work-at-abercrombie-and-fitch/


WHY WOULD A DEVOUT MUSLIM WANT TO WORK AT ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH?

What she sought was a lawsuit — litigation jihad, as evidenced by the participation of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, in her suit.

Hamas-CAIR pursues these “discrimination” lawsuits all around the country, pressing American workplaces to change the way they operate to accommodate Islamic norms. The goal is to establish and reinforce the principle that anywhere American cultural mores conflict with sharia, it is Americanism that has to give way.
post #2332 of 5117
How is this supposed to be any different from any of the exemptions Christians want for their particular set of beliefs?
post #2333 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

How is this supposed to be any different from any of the exemptions Christians want for their particular set of beliefs?

At its heart it's not. Either open the door wide for everybody, or Govt should just get out of the business.
post #2334 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post

Interesting article regarding the Abercrombie & Fitch case


http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/02/why-would-a-devout-muslim-want-to-work-at-abercrombie-and-fitch/


WHY WOULD A DEVOUT MUSLIM WANT TO WORK AT ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH?

What she sought was a lawsuit — litigation jihad, as evidenced by the participation of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, in her suit.

Hamas-CAIR pursues these “discrimination” lawsuits all around the country, pressing American workplaces to change the way they operate to accommodate Islamic norms. The goal is to establish and reinforce the principle that anywhere American cultural mores conflict with sharia, it is Americanism that has to give way.

Yes, Abercrombie & Fitch is the epitome of "Americanism", while -- little known fact here -- the Civil Rights Act was lifted word for word from the Koran.

Also, Bigfoot exists. I have a website that proves it. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/
post #2335 of 5117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Yes, Abercrombie & Fitch is the epitome of "Americanism", while -- little known fact here -- the Civil Rights Act was lifted word for word from the Koran.

Also, Bigfoot exists. I have a website that proves it. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/

Please do not provide troll bait to get idfnl to participate in my threak.

I do have to agree though that it seems odd a devout Muslim person of either sex would want to work for this company:

post #2336 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Please do not provide troll bait to get idfnl to participate in my threak.

I do have to agree though that it seems odd a devout Muslim person of either sex would want to work for this company:

That's fair point (although sometimes people do just need jobs and aren't in a position to be picky). But assuming for the sake of argument she walked in the door more interested in a lawsuit than a job, I'm not sure what that changes. Whether she's a decent, sincere human being, a political activist, or money-grubber is ultimately pretty irrelevant to me. Not to suggest that this case is on par with, say, Brown v. Education or Loving vs. Virginia, but there's a long history of civil rights cases growing out of an intentional campaign to build (or at least attempt to build) case law by trying to find or create situations that would be good jumping-off points for litigation (sympathetic plaintiffs, etc.) It can be a pretty obnoxious strategy at times (there's a whole mini-industry built around shaking down businesses for minor, technical purported violations of the ADA, for example) but it's hardly unusual. Indeed, what could be more MERICAN than ginning up a contrived lawsuit to try to get your way?
post #2337 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

How is this supposed to be any different from any of the exemptions Christians want for their particular set of beliefs?



Generally, the exemptions requested by Christians relate to government requirements, not private businesses. The Christian cases tend to be about conflicts between laws and regulations and religious beliefs. This case is about conflicts between job requirements of a private employer and religious beliefs.
post #2338 of 5117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

That's fair point (although sometimes people do just need jobs and aren't in a position to be picky). But assuming for the sake of argument she walked in the door more interested in a lawsuit than a job, I'm not sure what that changes. Whether she's a decent, sincere human being, a political activist, or money-grubber is ultimately pretty irrelevant to me. Not to suggest that this case is on par with, say, Brown v. Education or Loving vs. Virginia, but there's a long history of civil rights cases growing out of an intentional campaign to build (or at least attempt to build) case law by trying to find or create situations that would be good jumping-off points for litigation (sympathetic plaintiffs, etc.) It can be a pretty obnoxious strategy at times (there's a whole mini-industry built around shaking down businesses for minor, technical purported violations of the ADA, for example) but it's hardly unusual. Indeed, what could be more MERICAN than ginning up a contrived lawsuit to try to get your way?

So what you're saying is that the accusation she just did this to normalize Islamic dress code, and have it supersede workplace dress codes, might well be correct.

I'm not saying whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, as I've not really thought about it much, but other countries the US left usually look on as more enlightened, would have shot this down in flames. It's really an interesting dynamic and I'm curious to see where it all goes.
post #2339 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post

Generally, the exemptions requested by Christians relate to government requirements, not private businesses.
Bullshit. You're just making shit up.
There are plenty of cases involving Christians in the private employment sphere. You're entitled to hold whatever moronic, bigoted views you want. But it's really pathetic when you start spouting untrue crap in the forlorn belief that you'll convince other people to agree with you.

EEOC v. T-N-T Carports, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00027 (M.D.N.C. filed Jan.
12, 2009) (suit alleges employer permitted religious harassment in violation of Title VII when
management failed to respond to employee’s repeated complaints of demeaning comments by
co-workers aimed at mocking her church and her Christian religious beliefs).
EEOC v. The Vail Corporation, 07-cv-02035-REB-KLM (D. Colo. consent decree entered June
22, 2009) ($80,000 settlement on behalf of resort employee who alleged religious harassment,
failure to accommodate, and retaliatory termination when she was denied scheduling changes to
attend religious services, and she and a fellow Christian co-worker were prohibited from
consensually discussing their Christian beliefs with one another or listening to Christian music
while on duty based on management’s concern that it might offend their colleagues, even though
there were no similar restrictions on co-workers’ music with profanity or lyrics promoting
violence against women which offended her, and she was terminated within ten days of her final
complaint to management).
EEOC v. Orrington D.M.D. Ltd., No. 07 C 5317 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Jan. 13, 2009)
($462,000 settlement of suit on behalf of 18 charging parties against dentist alleging that he
routinely sexually harassed female employees and forced them to participate in Church of
Scientology practices, including requiring employees to start each shift with a prayer and
requiring them to recite Scientology “formulas” and the Scientology “triangle of understanding,”
in some instances on paydays before receiving their checks).
EEOC v. Union Independiente De La Autoridad De Acueductos, 279 F.3d 49, 56-57 & n.8 (1st
Cir. 2002) (evidence that Seventh-day Adventist employee had acted in ways inconsistent with
the tenets of his religion, for example that he worked five days a week rather than the required
six, had lied on an employment application, and took an oath before a notary upon becoming a
public employee, can be relevant to the evaluation of sincerity, but is not dispositive; similarly,
fact that the alleged conflict between plaintiff’s beliefs and union membership kept changing
might call into question the sincerity of the beliefs or “might simply reflect an evolution in
plaintiff’s religious views toward a more steadfast opposition to union membership”).

EEOC v. IBP, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 147 (C.D. Ill. 1993) (Seventh-day Adventist employee’s
previous absence of faith and subsequent loss of faith did not prove that his religious beliefs were
insincere at the time that he refused to work on the Sabbath).

EEOC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Civil Action No. 99-5126 (W.D. Ark. consent decree entered Aug.
14, 2000) (settlement of Title VII challenge to employer’s policy of requiring a letter from a
church in support of all accommodation requests).

EEOC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Civil Action No. 99-5126 (W.D. Ark. consent decree entered Aug.
14, 2000) (settlement of Title VII challenge to employer’s policy of requiring a letter from a
church in support of all accommodation requests).
Pending: EEOC v. Cinram Wireless, LLC, Case No. 3:09-cv-1785 (N.D. Tex. filed Sept. 25,
2009) (suit alleges employer violated Title VII by denying accommodation to, and then
terminating, telephone assembler who is a member of the Soldiers of the Cross of Christ Church
and sought exception to new company scheduling rule so that she could continue to observe her
Sabbath from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday; complaint alleges she was told by
human resources that if she was accommodated they would have to accommodate “every
Christian”).
EEOC v. Generation Properties II, LLC d/b/a Staybridge Suites, Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-
02420 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree entered Sept. 14, 2009) ($27,500 settlement against hotel
chain for failing to accommodate a Memphis employee’s Sabbath observance and then
terminating her).
EEOC v. Regis Corp. d/b/a Smartstyle, No. 3:08-0821 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 7, 2009) ($26,250
settlement to resolve claim that hair stylist’s request for accommodation of her Sabbath
observance was ignored and she was then terminated; settlement terms also required employer to
amend management handbook to provide specific instructions for handling accommodation
requests, and required training of management and hourly employees on religious
accommodation).
EEOC v. White Hall Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Civil Action No. 5:08-cv-00185 (E.D.
Ark. consent decree entered July 20, 2009) ($24,000 settlement also required ongoing reporting
to EEOC of any future religious accommodation complaints, in suit alleging certified nursing
assistant -- after having been accommodated for one year -- was refused any further scheduling
accommodation of her Seventh-Day Adventist Sabbath observance and was terminated).
post #2340 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So what you're saying is that the accusation she just did this to normalize Islamic dress code, and have it supersede workplace dress codes, might well be correct.

Yes, that could certainly be the case. I have no real idea either way, obviously. But it's certainly plausible. If you're a lawyer working for an organization that is seeking to normalize or improve the status of a certain group -- religious, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, whatever -- you're not doing your job if you don't consider whether there are existing legal avenues that can be utilized to advance those goals.
To your point -- one could certainly come to varying conclusions about the wisdom of a system that supports and arguably "rewards" such litigiousness. But it's a very American strategy to be sure.

Certainly some of the marriage equality cases were advanced by plaintiffs who were hand-picked by legal advisors and advocates to be "faces" of the movement. Rosa Parks wasn't just some random lady who one day had a whim to refuse to move to the back of the bus.

Again, I don't know either way, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Hobby Lobby folks weren't one of a number of business hand-picked in an effort to find a sympathetic vehicle for a carefully planned-out litigation strategy.


To add a somewhat related analogy from a wholly different context. I work in the media/entertainment field these days. A lot of time, money, and energy gets spent trying to protect the intellectual property/content that's the main product we all sell. Sometimes that's done through big, important lawsuits raising important and challenging issues of copyright law. And sometimes it's done through whack-a-mole lawsuits to slap down people who pirate content or facilitate the same. For example, set-top boxes are sold all over the world that basically allow one to receive cable or satellite pay TV signals without paying for them. Content makes and distributors do what they can to put the people who make and sell those boxes out of business. In some instances, they've been successful in obtaining injunctions or persuading government regulators to shut down sales because the "pirate" boxes were so thoroughly copied from "legitimate" boxes that they contained facsimiles of labels saying they had been certified to be in accordance with various consumer protection (safe wiring or whatever) requirements, when in fact they had not been. I'm not sure the companies that were pushing to have those sales shut down gave a rat's ass about whether there were actual safety concerns, but they saw an available legal lever and pushed it as hard as they could.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob