Their dress code is unreasonably and unduly restrictive. That's the point. They are allowed, within reasonable limits, to determine a dress code. They do not have an unlimited right to do that.
A&F didn't really help themselves with a pretty dumb argument for their side, boiling down to "well, how are we supposed to know they are wearing a head scarf for religious reasons?" Maybe I'm not knowledge on recent fashion, but I never recall head scarfs being worn for reasons besides religion or related to religion (e.g. doing a show/play/etc. where a character is a Muslim woman).
Why is honesty a bad thing?I've done hiring and the first thing you learn is never tell an applicant anything other than "Thanks for your interest. There were other, better qualified applicants."
That is why questions were invented.it also means that the business has to be able to read the persons brain before hand to know if it is a religious item or not. please tell me how any employer can do that.
So they were saying that Muslims should not wear their brand?AF went with a horrible defense. their defense is that we have a dress code policy that requires this look due to our brand that we have with the company.
wearing any kind of head gear would not support that brand and there is the possibility of financial loss.
Well, that's true. But my point is that it is the employer who decides the dress code. So my Hooters would have waitresses with tear-away jerseys.
why is honesty a bad thing?
Why is honesty a bad thing?
Why is honesty a bad thing?
I don't know which way I fall on this issue, but wanted to stop in to commentr on the fact that the a-hole CEO of AF looks like he has end-stage Garybuseyitis.
I do agree with that. I don't know how the court concluded that there was no knowledge requirement. Alito's concurrence there demonstrated well that there should've been. It makes no sense that a business can be held liable without knowing beforehand that something was a religious item or practice and the other party not making them aware of it.
your not allowed to ask those questions in an interview they are considered bias and lead to possible discrimination suits.That is why questions were invented.
So they were saying that Muslims should not wear their brand?
Why do I, as an employer, have to accommodate anyones religious nuttery? They came to my place of business looking for work, they follow my dress code. If they don't like it, they can work for you.
Really? Email Tom Brady and tell him he can play Monday Night Football with the gear but instead of the uniform just wear a t-shirt from home.
How about telling fast food worker that they do not have to wear the uniform/shirt provided? A waiter at a restaurant requiring a tie can wear a belly showing shirt?
Really?
not wearing headgear is a perfectly reasonable standard of dress.
You are allowed to ask ask just about anything. What you are not allowed is to discriminate.your not allowed to ask those questions in an interview they are considered bias and lead to possible discrimination suits.
Why? Isn't that the natural conclusion of a company that thinks that Muslim women wearing a scarf do not represent the image of the company?wow strawman much I guess so.
Your argument against the notion that the dress code is unreasonably restrictive is to give unreasonable examples that could be very easily restricted? I don't think you grasp the issues at play here.
You assert this without evidence. I dismiss it without evidence.
It say in it that honesty is bad? Can you cite the paragraph?Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974.
So it is not honesty that is bad but discrimination and you are OK with masking that with obfuscation and misrepresentation.Honestly isn't a bad thing. It's not dishonest to tell people there were other, better qualified candidates, assuming you're attempting to hire the best qualified candidate. But getting sued and having to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars defending against a federal lawsuit through appeals to the Supreme Court is a bad thing, so if you're going to discriminate against someone for the manner in which they dress it would be advisable to keep your mouth shut.
If one is attempting to mask discrimination by lack of honesty, is in my view dishonest.why do feel that's dishonest?...
IE you can't actually show how it is not reasonable to require people to not wear head gear.
so you lose by default.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?