Court Rules 8 to 1 Against Abercrombie & Fitch

[Jayhawker Soule]

See: Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie in hijab case.

Kudos!

 

[gsa]

See: Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie in hijab case.

Kudos!

The outcome is appropriate. Clothing that obscures the face is one thing, but the hijab is a fairly modest form of religious attire and Abercrombie cannot plausibly establish business necessity.

The opinion is quite limited though: only issue is whether applicant could establish religious discrimination without an express request for accommodation. Since the employer inferred the religious basis for the attire, it was pretty easy.

 

[Ultimatum]

"the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission"

What have we come to?

 

[dust1n]

"the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission"

What have we come to?

What have we come to.... some 50 years ago?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission"

What have we come to?

What are you yearning to go back to?

 

[Marisa]

The outcome is appropriate. Clothing that obscures the face is one thing, but the hijab is a fairly modest form of religious attire and Abercrombie cannot plausibly establish business necessity.

The opinion is quite limited though: only issue is whether applicant could establish religious discrimination without an express request for accommodation. Since the employer inferred the religious basis for the attire, it was pretty easy.

Yeah, that.

 

[YmirGF]

I surprised that such a matter actually got all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[metis]

Double Kudos.

 

[gsa]

I surprised that such a matter actually got all the way to the Supreme Court.

Housekeeping matter: An evenly divided Tenth Circuit denied a petition to re-hear the case before all of the judges, and there was a disagreement between the different circuits over whether or not an employee needed to notify an employer of the need for the accommodation before pursuing a complaint. Also, because the EEOC brought the case and it tends to litigate public interest matters, the Supreme Court probably felt an additional pull to resolving the matter.

But you are right: The USSC would not ordinarily take this kind of thing up without that kind of background.

 

[YmirGF]

Housekeeping matter: An evenly divided Tenth Circuit denied a petition to re-hear the case before all of the judges, and there was a disagreement between the different circuits over whether or not an employee needed to notify an employer of the need for the accommodation before pursuing a complaint. Also, because the EEOC brought the case and it tends to litigate public interest matters, the Supreme Court probably felt an additional pull to resolving the matter.

But you are right: The USSC would not ordinarily take this kind of thing up without that kind of background.

Ah, the hot potato syndrome.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm suspicious of the whole case. A&F had already changed their policy to allow such headgear, but this matter is gobbling up tons of money in the courts? Why?

 

[gsa]

I'm suspicious of the whole case. A&F had already changed their policy to allow such headgear, but this matter is gobbling up tons of money in the courts? Why?

According to the undisputed facts of the case, they refused to hire her because the hijab violated their so-called "Look Policy." Whether they changed the policy later doesn't matter, really.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to the undisputed facts of the case, they refused to hire her because the hijab violated their so-called "Look Policy." Whether they changed the policy later doesn't matter, really.

It doesn't matter to you, but as one who is in a business where many decisions are legally ambiguous, it concerns me. I run across situations where there's a compelling reason to do one thing, but the law might be against it, but it's vague, & case law is lacking. And sometimes, one can face a decision where any action is illegal (under different laws). It would be nice if when one ran afoul of a law, government worked with us to plot a better course instead of simply pursuing prosecution. They might act an ally of both parties in a dispute, instead of the enemy looking for a knock down drag out fight in court.

 

[gsa]

It doesn't matter to you, but as one who is in a business where many decisions are legally ambiguous, it concerns me. I run across situations where there's a compelling reason to do one thing, but the law might be against it, but it's vague, & case law is lacking. And sometimes, one can face a decision where any action is illegal (under different laws). It would be nice if when one ran afoul of a law, government worked with us to plot a better course instead of simply pursuing prosecution. They might act an ally of both parties in a dispute, instead of the enemy looking for a knock down drag out fight in court.

If the EEOC is involved, it is likely the case went to mediation and alternative dispute resolution, where it failed. If there is an actual compelling reason to discriminate against women who wear the hijab, that's an affirmative defense.

The EEOC investigates thousands of cases per year and only takes a handful on to litigate, so I don't think that they are being overzealous.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the EEOC is involved, it is likely the case went to mediation and alternative dispute resolution, where it failed. If there is an actual compelling reason to discriminate against women who wear the hijab, that's an affirmative defense.
The EEOC investigates thousands of cases per year and only takes a handful on to litigate, so I don't think that they are being overzealous.

I'm more skeptical that government tries to resolve things efficiently.
I've found much caprice, poltics, incompetence & vengefulness in the system.
To fight it out over penalties benefits government, lawyers, & judges.