Justices appear to favor Muslim denied job over headscarf
Source: AP-Excite
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it will side with a Muslim woman who didn't get hired by clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a black headscarf that conflicted with the company's dress code to her job interview.
Liberal and conservative justices aggressively questioned the company's lawyer during arguments at the high court in a case that deals with when an employer must take steps to accommodate the religious beliefs of a job applicant or worker.
Applicant Samantha Elauf did not say she was wearing the scarf for religious reasons. But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to speak for many on the bench when he said there was no reason not to hire her unless the company assumed she would wear a headscarf to work because of her religion.
"You assumed she was going to do this every day. And the only reason she would do it every day was because she had a religious reason," Alito said.
FULL story at link.
Samantha Elauf, right, with her mother Majda Elauf stand outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015. The Supreme Court is indicating it will side with a Muslim woman who didn't get hired by clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a black headscarf that conflicted with the company's dress code to her job interview. Liberal and conservative justices aggressively questioned the company's lawyer during arguments at the high court Wednesday in a case that deals with when an employer must take steps to accommodate the religious beliefs of a job applicant or worker. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150225/us--supreme_court-religious_discrimination-cbce00bd56.html
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)and don't want "ugly" or un-cool customers. http://elitedaily.com/news/world/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-explains-why-he-hates-fat-chicks/
GuntherGebelWilliams
(58 posts)This kind of foolishness couldn't happen.
People would be hired based on their needs not some greedy corporation.
People would be paid based on their needs not some corporate bottom line.
People would work and get the time off based on what they needed.
People would pay for goods and services only based on what they could afford.
Response to GuntherGebelWilliams (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)it will have implications that will touch on all sorts of businesses that categorize their employees as "models" (like Hooters and A&F) or "entertainers" (like Disney).