Muslims need not apply
Abercrombie Ftich website states that the retailer is to increasing and leveraging the diversity of our associates and management across the organization. Those differences will be supported by a culture of inclusion. Unfortunately, this does not seem apply to Muslim women.
Hani Khan, a 19-year-old Muslim woman of Pakistani decent, said she was fired from her job at a San Mateo clothing store for refusing to remove her hijab (head scarf). Khan was fired on Monday from Hollister, a retail brand owned by parent company Abercrombie Fitch.
Khan was told that she was fired because she did not meet the Abercrombie Fitch since she chose to follow her faith modest approach to clothing by covering her head with a scarf. This is ironic considering that Khan wore her head-scarf during her job interview, and her immediate supervisor had no problem with it as long as the color of the head scarf matched the company colors. From that point, Khan wore only navy, gray and white colored head scarves.
But apparently that wasn enough for the district manager who visited the store and pulled Khan aside saying that her head scarf was not the look the company wants. So much for their commitment to increase and leverage the diversity of their staff. Khan has rightfully filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint about this issue.
The truth is that Abercrombie and Fitch actions are not only reprehensible but are indicative of a deep-rooted problem within their organization of discrimination. This is not the first time this retailer has faced discrimination lawsuits. Last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie Fitch for allegedly discriminating against a 17-year-old Muslim in Oklahoma by refusing to hire her because she covered her head. In 2004, Abercrombie Fitch agreed to pay $50 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the EEOC that accused the company of promoting whites over minorities and cultivating a practically all-white image in its catalogs and elsewhere.
It time for a shake-up in the Abercrombie Fitch leadership organization. It time to stop this recurring behavior of discrimination. It time for them to finally live up to their claims of promoting diversity and fostering a culture of inclusion. If they do, it demonstrates a brand commitment to equality. If they don it demonstrates their promotion of bigotry and intolerance.
Disabled need not apply either: cf this from The Guardian:
Riam Dean, a 22-year-old law student who was paid an hour by A was removed from the shop floor at the firm’s Savile Row branch London, when management became aware of her disability. She was awarded compensation for injury to her feelings, for loss of earnings, and damages.
Dean, from Greenford, west London, who was born without her left forearm, told A about her disability after getting the job, and the company agreed she could wear a cardigan to cover the link between her prosthesis and her upper arm,Fake Oakley Radar.
Shortly afterwards, she was told she could not work on the shop floor unless she took off the cardigan as she was breaking the firm’s “look policy”. She told the tribunal that someone in the A head office suggested she stay in the stockroom “until the winter uniform arrives”.
I’m a white male and have had similar instances with (a) job. I was hired having long hair, after about 6 months we got a new manager who basically told me cut it or leave. While I don’t necessarily agree, the law states the employer has total control of how they wish to portray their image. That means you dress like they want or find another job,Cheap Oakley Holbrook Sunglasses. Why should Muslims get special rights to dress outside of company policy when no one else does? Enforcing a company wide dress code is not racist and not discriminating. This is one of the reasons why your religion is looked down upon by so many. Because so many think they should get special treatment and everyone else should bow down to their religion. A would of had the same issue if she went to work dressed as a nun. However, unlike your long hair (I had long hair too), the head scarf is part of her faith. But that alone is insufficient, I agree. What is sufficient from a legal perspective, however, is that she made clear upon her first interview that she would only accept the job if she was allowed to wear her head scarf.
A agreed to that condition. Moreover, they asked her to wear particular colors only. She agreed to that. From a Contract law perspective, a legal contract was formed.
This has nothing to do with “wanting special treatment.” This has everything to do with the fulfillment of a promise and obligation per US Contract law,Cheap Oakley Sunglasses. She could wear knight armor but if they consented, they cannot break the contract without her permission. That’s simple Contract law 101.