Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-24-2013, 12:36 PM Reply   
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-1-10.cfm
Former employee of A&F gets $23,000 for being fired because she refused to take off her religious head covering while working for A&F.
Three other teens were also fired and they all received payouts or religious discrimination
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       09-24-2013, 1:19 PM Reply   
Good, no other employer would get away with that.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-24-2013, 1:28 PM Reply   
I have mixed feelings about this. I think it should be an employer's right to hire people at their discretion. If you feel that you're being discriminated upon then don't work for that company and or protest them. I think if a company wants to choose a certain look or style goes with its company should be there right to have the ability to choose. Example if a gym is looking to hire a new personal trainer and they want to hire a young fit person that fits their company profile, should they be penalized if they don't hire an old overweight person.
I wouldn't want to work for a company didn't want
Me I would hate to think The only reason I was hired was to avoid a discrimination lawsuit!
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       09-24-2013, 1:33 PM Reply   
The problem with that G is that it encourages a class based society. We can end up with a majority class treating a minority as 2nd class citizens by keeping them from getting jobs, paying them lower wages, and preventing people from following an unpopular religion. That's about as un-American as it gets and takes a dump on what the founding fathers created.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-24-2013, 1:40 PM Reply   
What if she had been fired because she refused to take off a necklace that had a Christian cross on it?

I don't think G's stance would be the same.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-24-2013, 1:49 PM Reply   
What's with the old link? Says nothing about anyone being a former employee. I thought employers were allowed to place restrictions with dress code. As long as they aren't requiring a specific religion based dress policy in a business, they should be allowed to restrict what the employee wears without consideration of their religion. It's a clothing store so it makes sense that their dress code be consistent with the clothes they sell.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-24-2013, 2:32 PM Reply   
Jeremy: I guess your right. To me the Christian cross is kind of a no brainier and doesn't come off as hardcore religious. Same thing about the star of David. They "most of the time" are small religious tokens and I don't have any problem with them as would of most of America.

Now if the company said NO RELIGIOUS symbols I would also be fine with that.

And as far as our founding fathers and Freedom of Religion. Im all for that Praise what ever makes you happy.

and Like what Fly said " It's a clothing store so it makes sense that their dress code be consistent with the clothes they sell."
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       09-24-2013, 3:00 PM Reply   
The problem is this:
"Now, this retailer that targets a youth market is sending the message that you cannot aspire to their ‘All-American’ brand if you wear a head covering to comply with your faith.”

What if they teen is wheelchair bound? OK to discriminate? Black or Asian? Thats not the "all american" look afterall. What about if they are too fat? What if they wear glasses? Where do you draw the line? Research protected classes http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm particularly religion.

"Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts)."

The fact is, this teen fit the Abercrombie model in every matter - sounds like she was young, thin, ambitious, except for her religous expression. Grant - you make it sound like she walked in with a full Burka on by your statement "doesn't come off as hardcore religious". I dont think a head scarf is any different than a cross or star of David.
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       09-24-2013, 3:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
I have mixed feelings about this. I think it should be an employer's right to hire people at their discretion. If you feel that you're being discriminated upon then don't work for that company and or protest them. I think if a company wants to choose a certain look or style goes with its company should be there right to have the ability to choose. Example if a gym is looking to hire a new personal trainer and they want to hire a young fit person that fits their company profile, should they be penalized if they don't hire an old overweight person.
I wouldn't want to work for a company didn't want
Me I would hate to think The only reason I was hired was to avoid a discrimination lawsuit!
Again, research protected classes. Weight is not a protected class, and therefore employers are able to not hire based on such. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-24-2013, 8:03 PM Reply   
Boarder 85; Thanks for pointing that out. So it's ok for a business to discriminate it just can't be against ! Race Religion Creed. Some how I can remember larger flight attendants winning a law suit because airlines only hired smaller framed people.

My question is, if the girl showed up with out a head dressing in a tight fitting outfit and she looked the part For her job interview and they hired her because of a combo of skills and looks I could see A&F saying "she looks good and will attract young men to come in the store and buy product, the same way bars hire good looking lady bartenders. Now if after the young lady gets hired she shows up on her first day of work in baggy clothes and a head dressing. Should the company not have the right to let her go because NOW she is not fitting into the company look?
Old    Boarder85 (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       09-25-2013, 8:01 AM Reply   
There's exceptions to the rule, typically if it causes an undue hardship on the employer. The company has the right to let her go if she doesn't comply with the dress code. What the company does NOT have the right to do is create a dress code which specifically excludes certain groups of people. Well, one could argue that a satanist therefore has a right to wear a pentagram shirt, right? Or a devout Muslim can wear a full burka and cover their entire body right? No, again, see undue hardship. These are extreme looks which are so far out of the mainstream it would affect their business (they could argue). The employer can require the employee to wear clothes that fit their style, provided they reasonably accommodate their religion/disability/gender/etc.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-25-2013, 9:41 AM Reply   
I hate to quote Jessi Jackson but he had a debate about racesizm. One of his quotes was that " racesizm still exists today as it did many years ago, the only difference is that now it is underground and not out in the open like it used to be"

Do you think policy's and Law suits like this help change people views and or create tolerance or does it do what Jessi Jackson said it drives it underground?
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       09-26-2013, 6:00 AM Reply   
IMO, this is one of those things that should not be legislated. The public should vote with their spending dollar whether or not a business is practicing reasonable standards of any kind. Let commerce dictate.

However, the ethics of our society has decayed to the point that we do not do this, therefore this type of legislation has some merit. We are to the point that the government has to force us to act with some morals\ethics\integrity because it is no longer taboo to be without. This is just another indicator of how far we have fallen.

I grew up in a town with legendary racist tension. In the 50's it was the mecca of racism in the south. In the 80's it was dead in spirit, but alive in the lore of recent history. Nobody on my sports teams grew up racist or had a racist bone in their body, but because we were from where we were from there was tension everywhere we went. Armed guards escorting us to and from the bus, etc. Because of the racist past, we were still not a town of diversity. Im sure it still exists out there in some form, but I think its alot smaller than Jackson gives credit. With each passing generation it dies even more. I think Jackson, much like the schools my teams visited, defend against a racism that no longer exists.
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       09-26-2013, 6:25 AM Reply   
Have you read any Yahoo comments lately Jason G? The racists seem to be getting bolder. I don't know if it's the retired boomers that sit at their computers all day sending out their last messages of hate in a final attempt to control the next generation from the grave or if it's a more organized KKK using the internet in new ways to send out their manifesto.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       09-26-2013, 6:41 AM Reply   
I’m not sure what the working conditions are, but she could be putting her safety in danger by wearing the headdress. I’d be worried that she could slip and hang herself. However, IMHO, the federal government should not be allowed to tell a business owner whom he/she can or cannot hire. The owners are the ones putting up the money and taking the risk—not the federal government—so the owners should be allowed to manage their assets in order to increase their profits.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:40 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us