U.S. top court rules for Muslim woman denied job over head scarf

[YoungDemCA]

Source: Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co(ANF.N) clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

On a 8-1 vote, the court handed a victory to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that sued the company on behalf of Samantha Elauf. She was denied a sales job in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa when she was 17.

The legal question before the court was whether Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.

The court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that Elauf needed only to show that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/us-usa-court-scarf-idUSKBN0OH2NW20150601

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Once in awhile they do something right.

I'm amazed that Thomas actually dissented from a Scalia opinion, though.

[former9thward]

16. Scalia and Thomas agree with each other 81% of the time.

Scalia and Ginsberg agree 67% of the time. Scalia and Kagan agree 77% of the time. Is there really that much difference?

http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

[Princess Turandot]

22. In the 5-4 votes, there certainly is a difference...

The overall statistics are impacted by the higher number of cases where the vote is 9-0 or 8-1. In last term's 5-4 decisions, of which there were 10 cases, Thomas and Kagan disagreed 100% of the time. Scalia and Ginsberg disagreed 70% of the time. Sotomayor and Kagan disagreed with Alito 90% of the time. etc.



http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_tables_OT13.pdf (5-4 cases are on page 3 of this exhibit)

[SwankyXomb]

24. I'm not

Thomas is firmly in the "Americans should have no rights at all" camp.

[Aristus]

2. You hear that, sodbusters? Freedom of religion! For everyone!

Victory for the people!

[Va Lefty]

3. How did I know Uncle Tom(mas) was the no vote before reading article?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. he's a "No" nothing type of guy?

[Va Lefty]

14. lol

[Divernan]

30. And the jury says . . . .Leave It!

A black man should NOT be called "Uncle Tom" here or anywhere else. Regardless of his opinions. Its racist.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 1, 2015, 03:08 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: My vote is for all the people who still can't bring themselves to drink a can of Coke.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Clarence Thomas is the textbook example of an Uncle Tom - a phrase used in the black community to mean an African American who sells out his people's interests and still does today.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Racist BS. Hide.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alert. Racism.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not a racist term.

[7962]

34. Wow. I guess racism's fine as long as you're insulting the "right" black guy!

I'll have to make another note. Its getting hard to keep up!
As for juror #3, I could come up with definitions to explain other racist terms that I'm sure others use to justify their use all the time. Still doesnt make it right.

[Divernan]

55. Thomas fits in with Quisling & Vichy France-Petain.

He is a member of that despicable group of people who betray their own - call them collaborators, call them traitors, call them quislings or call them uncle toms. And consider the nouveau riche/arrivistes - including those who grew up in a middle class/working class family, but acquired unaccustomed status, wealth, or success, especially by dubious means and without earning concomitant esteem; a person who is unscrupulously ambitious. Like say, politicians who become obsessed with joining the One Percent?

Thomas fits in with:

A quisling is a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force. The word originates from the Norwegian war-time leader Vidkun Quisling, who headed a domestic Nazi collaborationist regime during the Second World War.

Judas Iscariot

Vichy France & Marshal Philippe Pétain

It comes down to a combination of low self esteem and greed. Groucho Marx ridiculed such a lack of self-worth by famously joking he'd refuse to join any club which would have him for a member.

[bravenak]

74. Whatever he is, it's still racist to call him Uncle Tom.

What is the name for a white man who does what he does? Should white people go around calling black men Uncle Tom's? Not they should not! It's racist and ignorant.
Every-time I see it done by white liberals it makes me sick to my stomach. Makes me feel as if the second I step out of line, I'll be getting racist names hurled at me by the so called non racist white liberals. It's offensive!
I swear it's like nobody bothered to even read the damn book before going around calling names and shit.
When special names are used only for black people, it's racist. How many black folks on DU do you see using that term? Why are you so comfortable using it? Why must you use it for black men who have politics that you despise? Why does he get a special race related name? Things like this are why you don't see very many PoC around here. So damn uncomfortable.

[bravenak]

75. Such a disgusting post. Makes me very uncomfortable seeing people use racist terms on DU.

[tammywammy]

79. At least there's a few here that think it's not okay.

I've never liked it. Not when it's been applied to Colin Powell in the past to Clarence Thomas today.

[bravenak]

80. Thank you. At least I'm not alone.

Everytime I see it, I get surprised. I probably should just expect it, but I don't.

[cosmicone]

4. Shows how out of touch Clarence Thomas is

if he can't even be on the same side as Scalia and Alito.

Great decision.

[Zight]

5. Didn't he agree in part?

And disagree in part? What parts were they?

[melm00se]

7. the ruling

is here

ETA: page 16 is where Thomas' dissent begins.

[Zight]

18. He basically did not agree at all

Now that I read the opinion.
Thanks for the link.

[HassleCat]

6. Careful what you wish for

I worked at a place where they had to accommodate a woman who was a member of some small religion that demanded its female members dress a certain way. She wore white strips of cloth wound around her body, so she looked somewhat like a mummy On her head, she wore a huge thing that looked like Madeline Kahn's hairdo in Young Frankenstein. Her employer wanted to keep her out of a public contact position because they thought her appearance might frighten people. And it did. Children would actually start crying if she got too close to them. Of course, the court ruled in her favor.

But it could go much further than that. Head scarves are only the tip of the iceberg. What about a full burqa? I'm not very sympathetic to religion in the first place, so I don't like the idea that employees can demand anything and everything be accommodated. I can see the head scarf thing, but where is the line between a head scarf and a clown costume? I know there is a line, but where do we draw it?

[cosmicone]

9. Anything that hides one's identity will not be allowed

Passport and driver's license pictures are one example where a full veil is not allowed even in hyperreligious Muslim countries.

[antiquie]

13. ~o^o~

Kirpan

[Zight]

19. Do you know what religion that was? NT

[question everything]

21. I wonder whether private employers can get away with establishing a dress code

Though I think some years back women won the battle to be able to wear pants..

Also, I wonder how she knew that she was not hired because of hear head scarf.. Most employers just say sorry, not this time but we will keep your resume in our files....

[samsingh]

25. actualy isn't this completely against the freedom of religion bills being passed

in red states?


in itself it is fine, but what about people fully covered? what if they are life guards? what if they are cops?
what if a religious based company refuses to hire someone because they bring in kosher food at lunch.


forcing businesses to confirm to people's religious practices is highly immature. look no further than the church of scientology to see what can happen.

[7962]

28. And what if the next demand is to be allowed to pray 6 times a day?

Will they be forced to give her an additional 6 breaks a day?
And who will be next with some other ridiculous demand because of their religion?

[Zight]

33. You have to let Muslims pray when they religion says they pray

Unless it causes due hardship, as in the Muslim surgeon, who obviously should not be free to leave a surgery because it's noon and he has to pray. If it's a clothing store or a waffle restaurant then it would be very hard to prove the prayer would hurt your business.

[7962]

36. What if the waffle restaurant only has 2 waitresses? 1 has to do all the work?

What if MY religion says pray every hour? For 15 minutes?
Slippery slope. Will lead to people just simply NOT hiring Muslims, or anyone else who MAY require special treatment

[closeupready]

42. If a biz makes policy NOT to hire muslims, laws broken

will almost certainly be rectified through civil lawsuits and maybe even criminal prosecutions, including fines and other punishments. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure what you're talking about is illegal.

It's a free country, and business are free to discriminate, but not free from the consequences of their illegal discrimination.

[7962]

43. True enough, but it'd be tough to prove it. Most jobs get lots of applicants

My brother used to interview for inventory jobs. He refused to hire ANYONE who came to the interview with a parent. But he interviewed them just the same. Be tough to prove that waa why they didnt get hired.

[closeupready]

44. Not that tough for civil lawsuits, when it's discrimination.

In civil lawsuits, even circumstantial evidence is enough. Or even statistics.

Take those statistics and add some hateful remarks, bingo, that's likely a judgment.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

76. As someone who actually hires people, I've been using

my own biases for decades. I treat everyone the same during interviews but won't hire anyone that I feel will hurt my company (I own it). No one has ever said a word and even if they did they wouldn't be able to prove anything. I hire the people who I feel will do the best in the positions I have open at the time.

[closeupready]

78. If your employee stats reflected a bias simply on the surface,

that would be enough to prove discrimination in some courts and would result in a judgment against your business. I believe the term is disparate impact.

And it would be enough even if you absolutely do not have any biases. But since you state that you have indeed been using biases in hiring 'for decades', the numbers are not likely to be on your side.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

89. Sure they are. I hire the people that I think are best for my company.

[closeupready]

90. "Sure they are" is fine for discussion here. However,

in front of an administrative law judge facing a complaint which has been examined by a state agency and certified as being a complaint meritorious for purposes of setting a hearing date, you'd need numbers in order to mount a defense.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

91. Which will never happen because I never give anyone a reason to go after me

because I do what I want and am polite about it.

[closeupready]

92. Peace.

[catrose]

54. Dell (or their contract firm Spherion) lost on such a case

The Muslim workers were taking 5 minutes for prayer time, and they staggered the times so as to have the work covered at all times. Most places should be able to cover for 5 minutes, about the time of a bathroom break. I used to resent cigarette smokers, who took much longer breaks just as frequently.

Here's background:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28616-2005Mar11.html

Since we have to accommodate employer's religion based on bad science (see Hobby Lobby) that calls for them to deny employees insurance coverage that offends them, I have no problem with someone wearing a scarf and taking 5 minutes to pray.

[7962]

67. Smokers hated me because of what you mention!

I used to take a break every time one employee would go outside to smoke. My boss asked me what I was doing and I told him "smoke break". About a month after that, the company stopped "smoke breaks" unless it was lunch or 1 of the 2 regular breaks.
All the smokers blamed me. It was funny watching the addicts "struggle" to make it 90 minutes without a damn smoke!

[catrose]

68. really!

I heard of someone calling it their "second-hand smoke break," and I did that a few times, but mostly I just worked away and seethed. Most of the managers smoked too; so I never thought complaining would do much good. But I do recall--not fondly--all those deadline days, when I'd work through lunch to get out the blasted product, but the smokers marched out regular as clockwork and straggled back in when they felt like it. Muslim coworkers who prayed five times a day would have been a treat!

[Zight]

61. No such religion exists, and that would be undue hardship

Because the employer would have to pay this guy for 1 hour and a half of not working. That's unheard of a ridiculously long amount of time.

[closeupready]

35. "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it."

[7962]

37. Excellent!

[LanternWaste]

40. Reasonable Accommodations.

It can be difficult to hide a dramatic lack of relevant knowledge about a given topic if we are merely dogmatic hacks intent on making a point rather than learning...

Reasonable Accommodations. While employers have a duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees, the employer does have some leeway in how it conducts its business. There is a point where the changes that are required to accommodate an employee become too burdensome on the employer. Most likely, a request by an employee to trade shifts when his or her faith prevents working on Saturdays is likely to be reasonable. However, less reasonable might be a request that an employee have a particular holy month off each year.

(See: Law and Religion, by Russell Sandberg or Selected Supreme Court Cases on Religion at: http://millercenter.org/debates/religion/supreme-court)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. Mr. Colander, here I come!

[malthaussen]

11. It's pretty bad when even Scalia doesn't dissent.

Let's hear it for Clarence Thomas for sticking to his principles! (Raspberry)

-- Mal

[MellowDem]

12. Terrible decision reinforcing religious privilege...

A policy applied neutrally is not discrimination. This gives religion favored status over any secular motivation. If I wanted to wear a baseball hat to work at this place, I couldn't bring a discrimination suit of not hired, but if I make it my "religion" suddenly I can?

Why should religion get such special privilege?

It's in keeping with the recent slate of rulings giving religion unprecedented power.

[Zight]

32. The law says you can't be neutral. The law gives preference to the religious item

Title Vll says you can't be neutral. Religious practice is treated with preference.
Title VII doesn't protect the guy with a Yankee hat. It protects the girl with the headscarf.

[MellowDem]

39. That's fucked up...

We have religious privilege written into our law.

[LanternWaste]

41. I imagine a lot of under-educated people believe it's fucked up we allow for accommodations via the

I imagine a lot of under-educated people believe it's fucked up we allow for religious (as well as personal, familial, medical, and yet other) accommodations via the mechanism of law.

Bless their little, half-witted heads. No doubt, we'll have some fun watching them attempt to now rationalize their sentiments as something else...

[MellowDem]

46. This is like none of those...

Because it gives special privilege to a class of people (the religious) above and beyond mere protection from discrimination.

It's why the Hobby Lobby decision was possible.

Allowing a religious person to be able to sue to wear a hat because their motivation is religious is fucked up. That's not a defense, it's a sword.

It is giving religion special preference over non-belief.

That IS fucked up.

[Zight]

49. So you argue that the law is terrible, not the decision

Do you deny that the law gives preference to the religious headscarf over the Yankee hat?

If you don't deny it, what did you want the Supremes to do? Contradict the law?

I think what you really meant is that Title Vll is bad law.

[MellowDem]

53. The decision is terrible...

because "religion" was defined in a very broad way, IMHO, but I think the law is terrible for sure, if it can be honestly interpreted the way the Court did, in this aspect.

If you read the decision, the majority says, on the bottom of page 6, that in regard to religious practices, the law demands more than mere neutrality, it demands giving them favored status over any other (non-religious) practices, THAT is what is fucked up.

[uppityperson]

62. It protects the man's turban or yarmulke or the woman's headscarf. Not the boy's sports team hat

So long as it does not cause undue hardship.

[goldent]

64. The 1st amendment gives special status to religion

right there with freedom of speech

[MellowDem]

77. No, this law does...

At least as interpreted by the SC, and same with the FFRA. This law violates the 1st Amendment IMHO, because it favors religious practices over non-religious practices, and is therefore an endorsement of religion over non-religion.

[Taitertots]

81. American political discourse is dominated by religious people

Why wouldn't you expect them to codify priviledge into the laws?

And being priviledged, they are blinded to how their priviledge affects the people around them.

[WinkyDink]

15. So what if a religion said its adherents had to go sans shoes and shirt? No service?

[7962]

29. My religion doesnt believe in bras!!

[happyslug]

70. How does that prevent you from being a sale's person????

That is the test, if the religious object interferes with your ability to do your job, your employer can forbid you from wearing it (or NOT wearing it, in the case of a bra). On the other hand, you can still do the job with or without a bra, what harm is the employer incurring if your employer permits you to NOT wear a bra?

In this case, the Employer said its Employees were "Models" not Sales women. The court found otherwise, i.e. the main purpose for the employment of these employees was SALES not as models and as Sales person's permitting the employee to wear full head covering (except for her face) did NOT interfere with the job of being a Sales Person.

The key is what is the occupation the Employee is doing and how would making an accommodation harm the employee's ability to do that job? The Court in this case saw no harm in the employee's ability to do the job of sales person and thus requiring her to remove her head scarf had no affect on her ability to do the job, and thus a violation of the Religious Accommodations sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts.

[BlueJazz]

17. I disagree with this decision. The reason is because it's a sales position. They expect their sales

...people to dress a certain way. Also, if she had a disfigurement or something of that nature...Fine.
Religion is a choice and if you can't even compromise a tiny bit?? >>> Tough.

[Zight]

31. If there is "undue hardship", Abercrombie can reject the applicant

But how can Abercrombie prove that this girl's headscarf would hurt their sales?

[BlueJazz]

45. It's not about hurting their sales. It's about letting one's internal beliefs dictate what they can

...wear. If someone wanted to wear a 10" cross or a Jewish person wanted to wear a very large Star of David, I'd have to say
"sorry, but No" "We don't wear our religion on our sleeve here"
But...your thoughts may very well be different on the subject.

[Zight]

47. How about a 2" cross? Or a not-so-large Star of David?

Would you allow that?

And it wasn't "My thoughts" who wrote "Undue hardship" on Title Vll.

[BlueJazz]

50. Sure, no big deal. I said "You may have different thoughts about the subject" ..or something ..

...like that.
If I were the store owner, anything (in that vein) up to 3 inches would be fine.

[Zight]

57. So you would allow a medium-size Star, a medium-size Yarmulke and a mediium-size headscarf

Correct? Or would you only allow the reasonably-sized Jewish stuff?

[BlueJazz]

58. Actually the Jewish people could wear what they want. They're the only ones that don't freak...

...out when I tell them "I don't believe in any and all gods"

[Zight]

59. Except if they want a 10 inch Star of David?

?

[BlueJazz]

60. I changed my mind. It's the cross thing that bothers me. I feel like they're all scared of vampires.

[closeupready]

48. A head scarf is not analogous to an extremely large religious icon

such as a 10" crucifix or extremely large Star of David.

It's analogous to the ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday, or a yarmulke.

[Zight]

51. I agree. The girl wasn't wearing a gigantic headscarf

As far as I know. If the analogy is to work, the size of both the Star and the Headscarf should be exaggerated.

[BlueJazz]

52. True but that's my opinion on it. Would I go into the store if she wore a full burka ?

Sure, I couldn't care less as a customer. If I owned the store, I'd set the dress code.
Also, keep in mind...the strength of my convictions on this subject is pretty weak.
It's not quite a non-issue...but close.

[closeupready]

56. Understood. I'm not muslim, but I am GLBT,

and I don't like seeing minorities get abused, or seeing their rights abridged, as seems obviously to be the case here. Like many here, there are lots of things about how Islam is practiced today with which I disagree, but I feel more strongly about being fair, even to those who subscribe to those beliefs.

[Taitertots]

82. It's analogous to an atheist choosing to wear a baseball cap

[closeupready]

83. Because baseball caps are symbolic of atheism?

The Oakland Angels are atheists?

[Taitertots]

84. If I decide my hat is symbolic, why isn't that as valid as religious people's opinions

[closeupready]

85. The US government doesn't just let you make up stuff

and assert constitutional protections over that stuff just because you, alone, say that it should be protected.

Further, the plaintiff here did not make up this stuff about her head scarf being eligible for constitutional protection.

[Taitertots]

86. Religious opinions are just as "made up" as non-religious opinions

[closeupready]

87. The issue of legitimacy here pertains to the US government.

Personally, I agree with you that religious opinions are largely just as 'made up' as non-religious ones.

[Taitertots]

88. Legitimacy? Not legitimacy, acceptance by the priviledged

Non-religious opinions are disregarded because people with religious priviledge refuse to extend their priviledge to the non-religious.

[LeftyMom]

93. No, they're more like god in that they don't exist.

Oakland are the Athletics, the Angels are the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

[closeupready]

20. Excellent ruling. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds,

but it's also what's fair. K&R

[Orsino]

23. WTF?

Are the Supremes just punking us now?

[happyslug]

66. You can NOT call a Sales Jobs a Model Job and get away with it.

That is a nutshell the case, the Employer said these were "Models" while the Employee said they were "Sales Jobs" and the Trial Court found it to be the later not the former (i.e. SALES JOBS not Model Jobs). Once that finding of fact was made, the case was easy. employers must make reasonable accommodations to the Religious Beliefs of Employees, in this case the obligations to wear full head cover. If the job of the Employee had been as a Model, the Court ruled in favor of the Employer, but the jobs was sales not modeling.

[riderinthestorm]

26. I wonder how this will affect places like Disney who classify employees similarly

it's how they get homogenous clothing/costuming.

Basically A & F classified their floor staff as "models". These folks wear A&F garments while on the job. The plaintiff didn't meet A&F's "model" guidelines because she would have been wearing non-A&F clothing on the sales floor and thus would have fallen out of the "model"/entertainer category.

It's how a whole slew of industries manage to get around non-conforming clothing. Disney uses it so do places like Hooters.

I guessed the plaintiff would lose since Disney has fought this battle before. I was definitely wrong.

[happyslug]

65. In many ways that was addressed in PGA vs Martin in 2001

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/661/case.html

Under the ADA's basic requirement that the need of a disabled person be evaluated on an individual basis, we have no doubt that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would not fundamentally alter the nature of petitioner's tournaments. As we have discussed, the purpose of the walking rule is to subject players to fatigue, which in turn may influence the outcome of tournaments. Even if the rule does serve that purpose, it is an uncontested finding of the District Court that Martin "easily endures greater fatigue even with a cart than his able-bodied competitors do by walking." 994 F. Supp., at 1252. The purpose of the walking rule is therefore not compromised in the slightest by allowing Martin to use a cart. A modification that provides an exception to a peripheral tournament rule without impairing its purpose cannot be said to "fundamentally alter" the tournament. What it can be said to do, on the other hand, is to allow Martin the chance to qualify for, and compete in, the athletic events petitioner offers to those members of the public who have the skill and desire to enter. That is exactly what the ADA requires. As a result, Martin's request for a waiver of the walking rule should have been granted.

In our system of law, findings of facts are reserved to the trial court (A jury if there is one, the Judge if no jury). In the above case the Trial Judge ruled that forbidding Golfers on the PGA circuit to use carts did NOT make walking an essential part of the game and thus permitting a person with a disability to use a cart was a reasonable Accommodation under the ADA act of 1991.

Now the ADA act is different from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but the logic is the same, what are the essential parts of an employee's job? Is it being an Sales Woman or a Model? In this case it appears the TRIAL COURT had ruled the essential element of the job was being a sales woman NOT a model. Once the Trial Judge made that finding of fact, the case on appeal was easy, how did accommodating her religious beliefs affect her ability as a sale woman? The answer was simple, it did not.

Sorry, a Court has said the jobs in A&F stores are SALES JOBS not Model Jobs. That is different when it comes to Disney and their Characters, they job is their Character and as long as that is all they do (or is clearly the most important part of their job), they have to wear they uniforms. Sales are handled by sales people.

[riderinthestorm]

69. I'd stipulate then you've clearly never been in a Disney sales shop

Walk out of the Lion King performance at Disney and into their shop, and its not sales - it's an " experience".

The sales staff are costumed. The uniforms are part of the experience. Yes it's all designed to sell but homogeneity is paramount. A woman in a headscarf won't fit the model thus she's not hired because she's not "talent" and doesn't fit the hiring protocol.

A&F claimed similarly. Their store models provided an experience to sell their product. Have you seen their marketing? It's soft porn. A Muslimah in a headscarf isn't anything like their brand. Clearly this Muslimah went in to challenge the law because a pious Muslimah wouldn't actually desire to wear the cleavage/half-naked/sexual promo clothing this brand markets.

She was offered a job stocking but challenged A&F's policy on floor "models".

[happyslug]

71. And A&F's LOST because they could NOT convince a Judge Modeling was THE important part of the Job

I admit I have never been to Disney, but the same rule would apply, unless Disney can show it is an ESSENTIAL part of a job to stay in Character, then making an accommodation for religion would be mandated even to Disney. The prospective employee would have to show sales was the most important part of the Job, but when is selling NOT the important part of a job when sales are involved?

If I was Disney, I would worry about this ruling, for it would affect them. Separate Characters from Sales and save yourself a lawsuit.

Read the PGA case, the key was the finding that the primary part of the job was playing GOLF not hauling around Golf Bags, even through the PGA REQUIRED hauling around Golf Bags as being part of the PGA Tour. PGA is an ADA case not a Civil Rights Case, but the logic will be the same.

[riderinthestorm]

72. Cinderella "sales staff" in headscarves is the collision of this ruling

the young women "selling" merchandise (cough) in the shop who pose for pictures with the customers dont go find a costume in the back shelves in 6x for the kiddie. They're there to "model" the merchandise while the back staff (ie the plaintiff) are then sent off to actually put that item up at the register.

It was the same for A&F ( I know. I have 27 and 18 yr old daughters and I've been to Disney many times).

I understand A&F didn't make their case which is why I posed my question and the ramifications for Disney, Hooters etc. they've called their staff "models", "entertainers" etc to skirt the issue. And now they're likely to face a Muslimah who insists on a veiled Pocohantos.

Now there's a lawsuit.

[happyslug]

73. Even among right wingers, attempts to work around the ADA and Civil Rights Acts have been disfavored

As seen in this case, every justice, except Thomas, believed the main reason for these employees was sales NOT as models. They want to make a clear distinction between the jobs. If you are going to co mingle such jobs, expect the law to rule that such employees are to be treated as the lowest common employee type. i.e sales persons not models. If you want them to be Models, you better make sure they do not do any sales. These judges like hard and fast rules and that is what they did here.

I did forget to mention Hooters. There was a case several years ago against Hooters, but it was dropped. It was a man suing Hooters for sexual discrimination for they only hired women. That is clearly a sex discrimination case, but Hooters embarrassed him for filing that he dropped the case (no victim of the discrimination, no standing to file or maintain the lawsuit). Everyone laughed about the man who wanted to work at Hooters, but he had a case and would have won but he dropped the case so the case ended.

Just because Hooters has avoided being sued does not mean they actions are legal. So far no one with standing has filed an action against Hooters. Someday someone will who has standing, but it will take a long while for the Federal EEOC does not want to be laughed at (and one of the things Hooters did was to make fun of the EECO supporting that man's action against Hooters).

I do NOT go to Hooters, if I want to see women's tits I go to a titty bar. At least there I know I am NOT saying one thing and doing another (i.e. saying women should NOT be treated as sex objects, while doing so, which is what men do when they go to Hooter's).

Some day, someone will file a lawsuit against Hooter's and win. It is clearly sexual discrimination to only hire young women with large breasts. It is sex discrimination, age discrimination and in the long run a very bad business model (even among men, taking a date to Hooter's is NOT seen as a good way to get HER in the mood). Yes, there is a certain clientele that goes to such places, but it is small compared to regular restaurants.

[bluestateguy]

27. Ruling would be applicable to a Jewish man wearing a kippa too

And Clarence Thomas, as usual, is just not worth taking seriously. He's qualified to maybe be doing small claims court cases, but that's about it.

[7962]

38. I dont know, have you BEEN to a small claims court lately?

Can get pretty crazy in there!

[happyslug]

63. kippa have been subject to litigation, in the MIlitary and Religion cases

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/475/503

In that case it was ruled that the US Air Force could forbid the wearing of a "Yarmulke" (another name for a Kippa, Kippah etc). Please note the court in that opinion said special rules applied to the Military, actually implied that civilian employers could NOT forbid such actions if employers had to accommodate religion (Which was NOT the law in 1986, religion only joined the other protected classes in the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the 1990s).


The Opinion was written by REHNQUIST, J., and joined by BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, and STEVENS. STEVENS, J filed a concurring opinion, in which WHITE and POWELL, JJ., joined.

BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post,

BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion,

O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J.,

The dissent all said wearing the Yarmulke was NOT that much of a break with the Uniform to disturbed military discipline. The case started after the Plaintiff, who had been a Chaplin for three years and wore his Yarmulke at all times was a witness in a Court Martial, when the Prosecutor LOSS the case, he blamed the Plaintiff wearing of the Yarmulke and demanded he stop wearing it. The Plaintiff was ordered to do so but refused and filed this case.