Supreme Court rules Abercrombie and Fitch discriminated against Muslim woman in hijab - TomoNews
- 9 years ago
WASHINGTON, DC — On Monday, the US Supreme Court sided with a Muslim teen in her discrimination suit against Abercrombie and Fitch. Eight Justices took her side, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter. Arch-conservative Antonin Scalia even wrote the majority opinion.
In 2008, A&F refused to hire plaintiff Samantha Elauf because she wouldn’t remove her hijab to comply with the store’s “look policy”. For Elauf, wearing the hijab is a matter of religious observance, but, A&F’s lawyers argued she had to specifically ask for a “Religious accommodation”, using that exact terminology, to invoke the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court says she didn’t have to.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is the latest blow to a brand that began selling outdoor wear in the 1890s, but in recent years has been known more for dubiously pornographic catalogs and an over abundance of muscular hunks at their store openings.
Now, A&F says they’ve turned over a new leaf, ditching CEO Mike Jeffries last year, along with his hunks. The “look policy” is gone too, so Elauf, or whoever, is welcome to work there. But, with a Supreme Court victory under her belt, where will she apply next? Maybe Hobby Lobby?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily videos brought to you by THE Taiwanese Animators behind the infamous Tiger Woods animation. We got the funniest animations on the web to help you stay in-the-know on all the trending stories, so sit back, relax, and watch a few.
Can't get enough of Taiwanese animations? Connect with us here:
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/NMAtv
Twitter @nmatv http://www.twitter.com/nmatv
Google+ http://gplus.to/NMAtv
In 2008, A&F refused to hire plaintiff Samantha Elauf because she wouldn’t remove her hijab to comply with the store’s “look policy”. For Elauf, wearing the hijab is a matter of religious observance, but, A&F’s lawyers argued she had to specifically ask for a “Religious accommodation”, using that exact terminology, to invoke the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court says she didn’t have to.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is the latest blow to a brand that began selling outdoor wear in the 1890s, but in recent years has been known more for dubiously pornographic catalogs and an over abundance of muscular hunks at their store openings.
Now, A&F says they’ve turned over a new leaf, ditching CEO Mike Jeffries last year, along with his hunks. The “look policy” is gone too, so Elauf, or whoever, is welcome to work there. But, with a Supreme Court victory under her belt, where will she apply next? Maybe Hobby Lobby?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily videos brought to you by THE Taiwanese Animators behind the infamous Tiger Woods animation. We got the funniest animations on the web to help you stay in-the-know on all the trending stories, so sit back, relax, and watch a few.
Can't get enough of Taiwanese animations? Connect with us here:
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/NMAtv
Twitter @nmatv http://www.twitter.com/nmatv
Google+ http://gplus.to/NMAtv