SUPREME COURT WAS WRONG IN ABERCROMBIE & FITCH...

The Supreme Court just voted 8-1 in favor of a Muslim woman that wore a head scarf (hijab) who was denied employment by Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

I was an employer for over 30 years (manufacturing) and am a social liberal.

Employers are OBLIGATED to accommodate (WITHIN REASON) the religious practices of workers and applicants unless they impose an UNDUE HARDSHIP on the business.

Justice Antonin Scalia, according to the Wall Street Journal’s “Justices Back Religious Rights” article by Jess Bravin (June 2, 2015) said that because federal law gives faith-related expression FAVORED TREATMENT, it is affirmatively obligating employers to accommodate things they could otherwise refuse.

The verdict which was 8-1 was based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevented employment discrimination which, at the time, had more to do with race than any other factor.

Abercrombie & Fitch, at the time, had a dress code policy that did not allow head coverings and had nothing to do with religious practices, just a plain dress code. In fact religion was never mentioned in her employment interview and she did not ASK for the company to accommodate her wearing the Hijab on the job.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only one dissenting from the opinion and said that his understanding of the Civil Rights Act was that it banned INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION and not neutral policies like dress codes that “happen” to interfere with some religious practices.

In this matter I will have to agree with Justice Thomas (who I never agree with) that religious practices should not and cannot dictate how a business is run and to especially to “negate” company policy which is in place for all to see and abide by.

What I really disagree with is that the court has elevated religious practices to a level above all other factors in employment which according to our constitution is tantamount to “endorsing” religion as something our government feels is to be treated as “special” and “above” all secular factors. To me this is constitutionally problematic since our First Amendment bans our government from endorsing any and all religion.

I think the company made a mistake by not showing Samantha Elauf (the Hijab wearer) their dress code policy and asking her if she could abide by it. If she could not, it had every right to deny her employment as the rules of employment were clearly stated at the outset.

Elauf said after the verdict that she is happy that the court recognized that THIS TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION is wrong which to me is nonsensical since the company was not discriminating at all but just enforcing its dress code policy.

It is too bad that Abercrombie & Fitch did not want to defend itself in this case since it had many arguments they could have used in their favor but as a retailer, I can understand that they did not want to spoil their image with a bunch of customers.

I can defend a Muslim woman’s right to wear a hijab but I could also defend a company’s dress code policy as something that contributes to its positive image as a fashion seller and deviating from this policy as being detrimental to the image it is trying to maintain.

I think our Supreme Court is being unduly influenced by a desire to show Muslims how accommodating this country is and leaving common sense and basic fairness at the doorstep.