tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post2938292068163946702..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Abercrombie and Fitch's "Look Policy" & the First AmendmentBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-33920779400089984872013-11-30T16:08:07.695-05:002013-11-30T16:08:07.695-05:00I am in agreement with Ben and the rest of the com...I am in agreement with Ben and the rest of the commentators. These women's free exercise was clearly violated and I think that they should both be protected from being fired. It is one thing for Abercrombie and Fitch to make a dress code for work in order to create a professional environment. However, they must be sensitive when it comes to religion and different religious customs. <br /><br />The part I'm a little confused about is that the women had to have been wearing their hijab's when they were hired; so why are they suddenly being fired from their job? Also, the reason A&F provides for firing the women is that the company has a certain look that they want to keep up by why is this relevant if they are working in the back rooms?<br /><br />I have a feeling a lot of cases like these will be arising for Abercrombie and Fitch Gabby (东碧柔)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01208742107973775296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-6198550147074280412013-11-20T17:55:19.420-05:002013-11-20T17:55:19.420-05:00I agree with the above comments that the women in ...I agree with the above comments that the women in all of these cases should be allowed to wear their religious garb. Like Maddie, I don't believe the hijab places a big enough burden on Abercormbie to allow them to tell her she cannot wear it. As Jennie pointed out, the policy may seem nuetral, but the courts have often dismissed facially neutral policies and laws. One thing I dissagree with, however, is whether it matters that the employee works in a visual capacity. This, to me, seems irrelevant - the woman should be allowed to wear her hijab no matter what.Tyler Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12201835260110186685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-80237581950655093492013-11-20T00:35:56.505-05:002013-11-20T00:35:56.505-05:00I agree with everything that has been said so far....I agree with everything that has been said so far. Sayeh brings up a very good point. If a specific store is seeking a particular individual to sell their product then they can refuse to hire someone who does not fit their image. Although, I must admit that this can be very murky since you can technically say that these people will be discriminated against. I can't help but think about models! Many fashion designers seek someone who strictly fits their image so that the general public can be more inclined to buy their products. And Ben mentioned Hooters and how they are highly selective of their waitresses. I can see the business side in selecting an individual over another but then again is this a legitimate reason to discriminate against? And I still don't know how to answer that. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16446374291496664840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-35740598454523996722013-11-19T19:21:18.332-05:002013-11-19T19:21:18.332-05:00I feel that this employee was never given a fair s...I feel that this employee was never given a fair shake and was certainly discriminated against due to her religious obligations. A&F has no right to infringe on their employees rights to free exercise if it effects the "look" they are trying to generate. I really cant imagine the company losing a significant amount of business because of religious head wear. I am confident that we will see very similar outcomes in these particular cases. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-81635478563356163062013-11-19T11:10:32.349-05:002013-11-19T11:10:32.349-05:00I agree with Ben and the above comments in this ca...I agree with Ben and the above comments in this case that the woman should be accommodated. Especially because the worker was not visible to the public eye and only working in the stockroom, there was no way she could negatively influence sales by wearing her hijab. What I would be interested to see is what the court would decide if the woman was working in the actual store (and visible to customers) and fired because she was wearing a hijab. I'm not completely sure how this would go because on the one hand, the store has the right to discriminate against who they hire (not necessarily based on her religion, but on various factors) but the woman also has her right to exercise her religion and wear her hijab. I think in that case though I might side with the store and say they do not have to hire her as they are trying to sell a product, and if they don't believe she can adequately do that (whether it's because she's wearing a hijab or not), then they are not obligated to hire her.Sayeh Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02819285451257157344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-82768559739424921192013-11-19T09:22:23.891-05:002013-11-19T09:22:23.891-05:00I agree with everyone thus far: the employees shou...I agree with everyone thus far: the employees should be given the accommodation. I understand that Abercrombie sees its employees as "living advertisements" but agree with the court that the point is moot if Abercrombie cannot show how employees wearing hijabs negatively affects sales. I do not know how much business goes on in the stock rooms either...Cori Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11016173590431873336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-30492512990590982952013-11-18T14:28:29.893-05:002013-11-18T14:28:29.893-05:00I agree with Ben that employees should be given ac...I agree with Ben that employees should be given accommodations to wear religiously-mandated headgear while working, especially because those who work behind the scenes in stockrooms. I think Maddie was right to take this case a step further and argue that all employees should be accommodated regardless of the position in which they work, behind the scenes or visible to the public.<br /><br />Having a rule stating that no employees can wear headgear seems neutral and Abercrombie & Fitch can control the appearances and looks of their employees to some extent. But this rule does not treat people equally in practice and unconstitutionally prevents free exercise.Jennie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13806138538524287490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-48819057049288956532013-11-18T14:10:27.153-05:002013-11-18T14:10:27.153-05:00I agree with Ben that the plaintiffs should be giv...I agree with Ben that the plaintiffs should be given the accommodation to wear their hijabs at work. The court denied Abercrombie and Fitch’s argument that they were “living advertisements” because they were stockroom workers and would not be seen by the customers. I think that even if these employees were working in the public eye of the company, they still should be allowed to wear their hijabs. I don’t think the company would suffer a large enough burden as a result that could override the employees’ right to free exercise of their religion.Maddie C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18049241668905770415noreply@blogger.com