• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fired from Hollister for wearing the hijab?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zapages

Member
Seriously what's wrong with this company. They could not come up with a better reason to fire someone...

Good thing that I refused the invitation to work at Abercrombie & Fitch when I was freshmen in University...:)

San Francisco

A Muslim woman, apparently fired from teen clothier Hollister Co. for wearing the hijab, a religious headscarf, filed a federal complaint this week charging that she was wrongfully fired due to religious discrimination.

Hani Khan, a Bay Area college student, was let go from the clothing chain, which is owned by Abercrombie & Fitch, because her hijab violated the company’s “look policy,” according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which filed the complaint along with Ms. Khan.

CAIR said the termination violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to accommodate an employee's religious practices unless it creates “undue hardship.”

The hijab, which is worn by Muslim women around the world as a symbol of their Islamic faith, has been the center of controversy before. It has sparked protests in Europe over its place in society as Muslim populations there grow. While many US Muslim women say there is growing acceptance for the hijab, discrimination is not uncommon.

But the hijab debate that has erupted in the Bay Area involving Ms. Khan, who was a part-time stockroom employee, and Abercrombie & Fitch could shine a new light on religious discrimination at the corporate level.

“Ideally we would have liked to have resolved this and chalked it up to a mistake," says Zahra Billoo, program and outreach director for the Bay Area branch of CAIR. She says when CAIR was initially made aware of Khan's case, it sent a letter to corporate headquarters explaining Khan's religious rights. Often, she says, once employers understand the significance of the hijab, they will accommodate their employees. In this case, she says, the termination "seems like a high-level concerted decision."

So far, Abercrombie & Fitch has not issued a comment about the case.

This is not the first complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch that involves the hijab. In 2008, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR filed a complaint against the company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after a Tulsa teenager was apparently refused employment because of her hijab.

In that case, the EEOC has filed a discrimination suit against Abercrombie & Fitch. In 2004, the EEOC charged the clothing chain with putting into place discriminatory hiring practices. The company, which operates more than 1,000 stores worldwide, settled the case for $50 million and agreed to change its policies.

In relation to the 2004 case, EEOC's general counsel said, "The retail industry and other industries need to know that businesses cannot discriminate against individuals under the auspice of a marketing strategy or a particular ‘look.' Race and sex discrimination in employment are unlawful, and the EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue employers who choose to engage in such practices."

According to the company’s website, Abercrombie & Fitch says “diversity and inclusion are key to our organization’s success. We are determined to have a diverse culture, throughout our organization, that benefits from the perspective of each individual.”

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0226/Fired-from-Hollister-for-wearing-the-hijab
 

Seth C

Member
They can fire someone for being fat, or not wearing their clothes, I think they will get away with this one. Basically, appearance is 99% of their employee handbook.
 

ZeroGravity

Member
I'm not familiar with what a "look policy" is, but is this really different from violating any company's normal dress codes? Whether you like it or not, you can't just wear whatever you want to work.
 
Seth C said:
They can fire someone for being fat, or not wearing their clothes, I think they will get away with this one. Basically, appearance is 99% of their employee handbook.

They are allowed to use appearance for the front of the store employees, but:

"Ms. Khan, who was a part-time stockroom employee"

Not for the people in the back.

Like Hooters. They are allowed to only hire busty women as servers....but not for the kitchen.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Gotta side with Hollister on this one. Places like this and A&F require their employees to have a certain look, and they have the right to hire and fire as such. You should know what you're getting into when applying to fold shirts and stand around looking like a rich spoiled white kid at Hollister. Sucks but thems the breaks, and I don't see why they should be forced to make exceptions for religious reasons.
 

Bboy AJ

My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
Thanks for posting this. I'm working on a seminar paper on this topic. I look forward to the replies in this thread.
 

Metalic Sand

who is Emo-Beas?
jamesinclair said:
They are allowed to use appearance for the front of the store employees, but:

"Ms. Khan, who was a part-time stockroom employee"

Not for the people in the back.

Like Hooters. They are allowed to only hire busty women as servers....but not for the kitchen.

I was going to say something until i read this. How the hell can they enforce a look policy for people who stay in the back? :lol
 

KAL2006

Banned
This is bullshit, who ever supports this is a moron, If I see the employee wearing a name tag, uniform (shirt, trousers etc) then I know the person works for the fucking place, seeing the hijab wont make me think "oh shit this person looks strange", it will make me think "oh an employee thats a muslim" thats all.
 

Gaborn

Member
1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.

2. This was a stupid decision. If that was going to be their policy they should have never hired her in the first place.

3. It doesn't appear to affect her ability to do her job, so they shouldn't have done it.
 
Metalic Sand said:
I was going to say something until i read this. How the hell can they enforce a look policy for people who stay in the back? :lol

I don't know if Hollister is the same but when I worked stockroom at Banana Republic I spent 75% of my time on the store room floor replenishing items.
 

Seth C

Member
Metalic Sand said:
I was going to say something until i read this. How the hell can they enforce a look policy for people who stay in the back? :lol

I was a call center employee, where I had no actual face to face interaction with any customer, and I still had to wear slacks/khakis, a button down shirt, and dress shoes. So I don't know, but I bet they can.
 

Medalion

Banned
Gaborn said:
1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.

2. This was a stupid decision. If that was going to be their policy they should have never hired her in the first place.

3. It doesn't appear to affect her ability to do her job, so they shouldn't have done it.

They hired her having no problem with it. Somebody complained, and people were probably to be happy to be rid of her and used that as an excuse.
 

loosus

Banned
I back the company 100% in the ability to fire someone for wearing this, but...why was she hired to begin with? Just doesn't compute.
 

Kaeru

Banned
crazy monkey said:
why would they hire one if they are going to fire them?

She probably didnt wear it when applying for the job.
Ive heard of this tactic before.
In UK it happened but the difference was that the woman was applying for a job at a school. At the interview she was wearing normal clothes but the first day at work she came dressed in a niqab. Of course she wasnt allowed to continue but instead she sued her former employee. Its a nice way to make money apparently.

I personally dont think its appropriate to show of religious/political symbols when on work.
 

tokkun

Member
demon said:
Gotta side with Hollister on this one. Places like this and A&F require their employees to have a certain look, and they have the right to hire and fire as such.

They are not free to do so if their requirements are illegal.

Gaborn said:
1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.

Again, they can't do so if such discrimination is illegal, unless what you mean to say is "I think the existing laws that prevent private companies from discriminating against certain groups should be repealed."
 

giga

Member
Gaborn said:
1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.
Not a fan of the 1964 civil rights act I suppose?
 

Gaborn

Member
itxaka said:

Just what I said, pretty much if they pay the bills they should make the rules. And of course, face negative public reaction if their decision is controversial/racist/sexist/choose your "ist"

Giga - I don't think the GOVERNMENT should ever discriminate. I also don't think people should be told how to run their business by the government if they're paying the bills (within reason for health codes, building safety, things like that)
 

loosus

Banned
Sorry, I don't necessarily agree with you, Gaborn. In principle, I would say you're right, but I don't think we live in that reality right now.

But as far as having discriminate judgement based on clothing, accessories, hairstyle, etc., then I think an employer should have 100% authority.
 

fse

Member
Seems the company has the right to fire anyone if they don't fall under the dress code.
 

Gaborn

Member
loosus said:
Sorry, I don't necessarily agree with you, Gaborn. In principle, I would say you're right, but I don't think we live in that reality right now.

But as far as having discriminate judgement based on clothing, accessories, hairstyle, etc., then I think an employer should have 100% authority.

clothing, accessories, hairstyles, etc are all just labels, much like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I don't see that it makes a difference if a business discriminates in one way vs another. Personally as a matter of principle I won't deal with a discriminatory business and I believe a large majority of people agree with me on that. At some point society has to be trusted to take off the training wheels and let people run their business relatively free of interference.
 

slit

Member
Gaborn said:
1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.

You may feel that way but that's not how the law works, it's discrimination and therefore illegal. Just because they are a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. You shouldn't feel sorry for her though, she'll be getting a pretty penny out of this suit.
 
I used to work there as ASM and their policies are so discriminatory its got to be illegal. And they have been sued many times. We were pressured alot to hire non whites, didn't matter if they didn't "reflect the brand"
 

Gaborn

Member
slit said:
You may feel that way but that's not how the law works, it's discrimination and therefore illegal.

True. Just like I think marijuana and other personal drug use should not be a crime I acknowledge that it is.

Just because they are a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. You shouldn't feel sorry for her though, she'll be getting a pretty penny out of this suit.

I don't feel sorry for her, and I don't actually mind that the company is getting punished for this. I just believe that the punishment should be social stigma, boycotts and the like, not necessarily a law suit.
 

gdt

Member
slit said:
You may feel that way but that's not how the law works, it's discrimination and therefore illegal. Just because they are a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. You shouldn't feel sorry for her though, she'll be getting a pretty penny out of this suit.

Thats his point. He doesn't think racial discrimination from a private company should be illegal.
 

loosus

Banned
Gaborn said:
clothing, accessories, hairstyles, etc are all just labels, much like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I don't see that it makes a difference if a business discriminates in one way vs another. Personally as a matter of principle I won't deal with a discriminatory business and I believe a large majority of people agree with me on that. At some point society has to be trusted to take off the training wheels and let people run their business relatively free of interference.
I can see your point (and like I said, I do agree in principle), but there is a slight difference: race and gender, for example, can't be helped. What you wear? How you act? Even what your religion is? Those can be changed.
 

joey_z

Banned
I don't think the intention was to discriminate and for that reason I think they have the right to fire her. The scarf is an antithesis to the brand - where the store tries to be sleek and sexy(personally not a fan of their stuff), going out of their way to employ douche-models, a girl with a scarf really is counter culture and maybe even counter productive to the brand image.

Still one could argue the extent to which a company should be allowed to implement such policies in trying to retain its image; should a black person be turned away from a store because he's not the target audience or not be allowed to work the counter because the clothes are meant for white people? Should a Jew not be allowed to work at the store because his facial features don't match company policy? It's a slippery slope.
 

Gaborn

Member
loosus said:
I can see your point (and like I said, I do agree in principle), but there is a slight difference: race and gender, for example, can't be helped. What you wear? How you act? Even what your religion is? Those can be changed.

Sure to a point, although what you wear can be often influenced by your religion (see: Sikhism as a prime example). But to me it doesn't matter. If someone wants to hire only blacks, or only people with blue eyes, or only left handed blonde lesbian women born in 1975 that's their business.
 

loosus

Banned
joey_z said:
Still one could argue the extent to which a company should be allowed to implement such policies in trying to retain its image; should a black person be turned away from a store because he's not the target audience or not be allowed to work the counter because the clothes are meant for white people? Should a Jew not be allowed to work at the store because his facial features don't match company policy? It's a slippery slope.
Yes, an employer should be able to not hire people under these circumstances.

Sure to a point, although what you wear can be often influenced by your religion (see: Sikhism as a prime example).
What, for an employer, the effects of your religion and how you practice it are more important than the religion itself. Some Muslims don't wear any religion clothing; some do. You really shouldn't fire someone because he/she is Muslim, but if the Muslim person does something that violates company policy because of Islam (like wearing certain clothing), then the employer should undoubtedly be able to fire the person.

Ultimately, regardless of his/her religion, how an employee chooses to practice and where he/she chooses to practice is up to the individual, and he/she must accept the consequences of doing so.
 

Dynamic3

Member
demon said:
Gotta side with Hollister on this one. Places like this and A&F require their employees to have a certain look, and they have the right to hire and fire as such. You should know what you're getting into when applying to fold shirts and stand around looking like a rich spoiled white kid at Hollister. Sucks but thems the breaks, and I don't see why they should be forced to make exceptions for religious reasons.

Rich spoiled white kids wear Hollister?
 

Kaeru

Banned
Gaborn said:
Sure to a point, although what you wear can be often influenced by your religion (see: Sikhism as a prime example). But to me it doesn't matter. If someone wants to hire only blacks, or only people with blue eyes, or only left handed blonde lesbian women born in 1975 that's their business.

Even if I dont quite agree with you 100%, I think your being consistent in your liberal views and that I respect.
 

loosus

Banned
Kaeru said:
Even if I dont quite agree with you 100%, I think your being consistent in your liberal views and that I respect.
What are you talking about? That's extremely conservative.
 

joey_z

Banned
teruterubozu said:
Mostly, from what I can see.

I think rich white spoiled kids prefer Ralph Lauren and Brooks Brothers over Hollister. It seems more like kids that wear Hollister think rich white spoiled kids wear Hollister.
 

giga

Member
Gaborn said:
I don't feel sorry for her, and I don't actually mind that the company is getting punished for this. I just believe that the punishment should be social stigma, boycotts and the like, not necessarily a law suit.
Sadly, stigmas and boycotts rarely make an impact on a firm's policies. Many firms regularly discriminate (wage, hiring) or allow gross human rights violations (mostly multinational corporations) and yet are still standing today because consumers are too dependent on them or it's just a minority consumers who really care. Wal-Mart is a great example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom