Justices appear to favor Muslim denied job over headscarf
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Have you heard the one about the Sikh, the Hasidic Jew, the Muslim and the nun who walked into a job interview?

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito channeled his inner stand-up comic Wednesday in indicating that he and most of the court would side with a Muslim woman who showed up for a job interview with Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a black headscarf. She didn't get hired.

Samantha Elauf, the woman at the center of the case about religious discrimination in hiring, was in the courtroom Wednesday. The case turns on how an employer is supposed to know that a worker or applicant has religious beliefs that need to be accommodated.

The clothing retailer said Elauf can't claim discrimination because she didn't say anything about religion during her interview.

Alito acknowledged that it sounded like he was making a joke in describing interviews with "a Sikh man wearing a turban," "a Hasidic man wearing a hat," ''a Muslim woman wearing a hijab" and "a Catholic nun in a habit." But his point was that employers can't feign ignorance when people appear before them in religious clothing.

"Now, do you think ... that those people have to say, we just want to tell you, we're dressed this way for a religious reason. We're not just trying to make a fashion statement," Alito said.

Pressed by both conservative and liberal justices, Abercrombie lawyer Shay Dvoretzky said employers would get into trouble if they started making assumptions about people. "What we want to avoid is a rule that leads employers, in order to avoid liability, to start stereotyping about whether they think, guess or suspect that somebody is doing something for religious reasons," Dvoretzky said.

Only Justice Antonin Scalia seemed open to the company's argument.

Several of Scalia's colleagues said there's an easy way to avoid stereotyping. Tell job applicants what the rules are and ask them, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "You have a problem with that?"

Those conversations sometimes might be awkward, Justice Elena Kagan said. But far better the awkward moments than a situation that leads to stereotyping anyway, Kagan said.

Indeed, Alito made the point that despite Elauf's silence, the company assumed she would wear a headscarf to work because of her religion.

"You assumed she was going to do this every day. And the only reason she would do it every day was because she had a religious reason," he said.

The federal civil rights law known as title VII requires employers to make accommodations for employees' religious beliefs in most instances. Dvoretzky said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, representing Elauf, wants employers to treat people differently based on religion, "which is precisely the opposite of what Title VII wants."

That provoked a sharp reply from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Title VII requires them to treat people who have religious practice differently. They don't have to accommodate a baseball cap. They do have to accommodate a yarmulke," Ginsburg said, referring to a Jewish skullcap.

Abercrombie has continued to fight Elauf's lawsuit, filed on her behalf by the EEOC, even though it since has settled similar claims and changed its headscarf policy. The ban on black clothing remains part of its Look Policy for employees.

Elauf was 17 when she interviewed for a "model" position, as the company calls its sales staff, at an Abercrombie Kids store in a shopping mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2008. She impressed the assistant store manager. But her application faltered over her headscarf, or hijab, because it conflicted with the company's Look Policy, a code derived from Abercrombie's focus on what it calls East Coast collegiate or preppy style.

At the time of the interview, the policy required employees to dress in a way consistent with the clothing Abercrombie sells, and it prohibited wearing headscarves or anything in black.

The woman who conducted the interview consulted with a more senior supervisor and then decided not to hire Elauf because of the headscarf, according to testimony in the case. "The only reason there was a suit here was because she was honest," Sotomayor said, calling the interviewer's candid comment rare in employment discrimination cases.

After Elauf complained, a jury eventually awarded her $20,000. But the federal appeals court in Denver threw out the award and concluded that Abercrombie & Fitch could not be held liable because Elauf never asked the company to relax its policy against headscarves.

Organizations of state and local governments are supporting the company out of concerns that, if the EEOC prevails, they would be subject to more discrimination claims as large employers.

Muslim, Christian and Jewish advocacy organizations have weighed in on Elauf's side, as have gay-rights groups.

A legal brief on behalf of Orthodox Jews argues that requiring job applicants to voice the need for religion-related special treatment makes them less likely to be hired, with no reason given for the decision. Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired, lawyer Nathan Lewin said in his Supreme Court filing.

A decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 14-86, is expected by late June.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-26

There you go. Political correctness gone mad!

It's not PC gone mad at all. All religions are affected., and in this particular case A&F are being disingenuous.

What a screwed world we live in...with all efforts, experience, creativity and own money you set up a business, try to make it profitable and you can't choose the people you want to work with to make this happen?

comes to mind when in Rome , PC bullshit is killing our countries

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

What a screwed world we live in...with all efforts, experience, creativity and own money you set up a business, try to make it profitable and you can't choose the people you want to work with to make this happen?

because you end up with a society that will not employ black people or women or gays, for example. Discrimination will occur if it is not regulated.

Do you propose that society may discriminate because of religion? What about gender? Race? Sexual orientation?

Obviously, and the law accommodates for this, some jobs require a person who is specifically NOT something or other, eg a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man, but in general, discrimination has to be discouraged with regulation.

a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man

Give it a few years. Prisons have to hire women guards for men's prisons. There is not a lot of difference.

Edited February 26, 201511 yr by Ulysses G.

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

Can you imagine the outcry if a business declined to hire a person for some reason associated with him being Jewish? "You skullcap doesn't fit our image, sorry."

This is why there are anti-discrimination laws, and also why, " Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired,"

If a company has a dress code, they should make that clear in the interview. They also should record the interview and get consent for recording. Doesn't take much effort for HR department.

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

Can you imagine the outcry if a business declined to hire a person for some reason associated with him being Jewish? "You skullcap doesn't fit our image, sorry."

This is why there are anti-discrimination laws, and also why, " Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired,"

Sorry.. I don't really care. if I run a business its about making money and if I think that a Jew or a Muslim does not fit in why should i hire him. Can you imagine to be force do hire a Jew in an Muslim butchery.. that will be good for your customers. Sorry business first they choose the religion.

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Many years ago I started my own private security and body guard company. I clearly stated the credentials for potential applicants. You had to be former Marine Recon, Navy Seal or Airborne Ranger.

I had a man sue me for "unfair hiring practices". His little foray into the legal world got shot down in court when the judge told him that I had clearly stated the requirements for the job, of which he, having never been in the military, did not qualify for. Case dismissed, with him having to pay all court costs and attorney fees for bringing a "frivolous law suit".

Sometimes life's a bitch.

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

Can you imagine the outcry if a business declined to hire a person for some reason associated with him being Jewish? "You skullcap doesn't fit our image, sorry."

This is why there are anti-discrimination laws, and also why, " Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired,"

Sorry.. I don't really care. if I run a business its about making money and if I think that a Jew or a Muslim does not fit in why should i hire him. Can you imagine to be force do hire a Jew in an Muslim butchery.. that will be good for your customers. Sorry business first they choose the religion.

I agree with you. But so do bigots and they would use the freedom to perpetuate their bigotry. Society has to make rules for the minority of irresponsible people.

Where do you draw the line? Black people can't get jobs, or women can't get jobs, because the employers are allowed to say no on basis of their colour, gender etc.

Employers have to get smart in how they employ. As Klaus said above, they should point out the restrictions of the job (if there are restrictions, say a certain dress code or the need to handle pork) and clarify if the applicant can comply. They would then be turning the applicant down on grounds of not qualifying, not their religion per se. Straight-out bigots wouldn't be able to do that in jobs where there would be no restrictions.

a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man

Give it a few years. Prisons have to hire women guards for men's prisons. There is not a lot of difference.

Qualified people are not being hired. I'm not saying women should not be police officers but 2 teenage girls totally manhandled a female cop in my city last week, it looked ridiculous. If it was a male suspect...

BTW, it was caught on tape and the girls were just slapping her around and did not look like they were trained.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man

Give it a few years. Prisons have to hire women guards for men's prisons. There is not a lot of difference.

Have you been in Tesco Lotus lately ?

Edited February 26, 201511 yr by ToddinChonburi

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

Can you imagine the outcry if a business declined to hire a person for some reason associated with him being Jewish? "You skullcap doesn't fit our image, sorry."

This is why there are anti-discrimination laws, and also why, " Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired,"

Sorry.. I don't really care. if I run a business its about making money and if I think that a Jew or a Muslim does not fit in why should i hire him. Can you imagine to be force do hire a Jew in an Muslim butchery.. that will be good for your customers. Sorry business first they choose the religion.

I agree with you. But so do bigots and they would use the freedom to perpetuate their bigotry. Society has to make rules for the minority of irresponsible people.

Where do you draw the line? Black people can't get jobs, or women can't get jobs, because the employers are allowed to say no on basis of their colour, gender etc.

Employers have to get smart in how they employ. As Klaus said above, they should point out the restrictions of the job (if there are restrictions, say a certain dress code or the need to handle pork) and clarify if the applicant can comply. They would then be turning the applicant down on grounds of not qualifying, not their religion per se. Straight-out bigots wouldn't be able to do that in jobs where there would be no restrictions.

I am certainly not a bigot so I do see your point. I just look at this from a business point of view. And yes if you can force a dress-code upon someone it would be good enough. But even that could be seen as discriminatory. In my personal business it does not matter much as there is almost no face to face client contact. However there where that is important I can see the problems.

I understand the need for laws like this.. but on the other hand i feel they are unfair to small business owners.

What a screwed world we live in...with all efforts, experience, creativity and own money you set up a business, try to make it profitable and you can't choose the people you want to work with to make this happen?

because you end up with a society that will not employ black people or women or gays, for example. Discrimination will occur if it is not regulated.

Do you propose that society may discriminate because of religion? What about gender? Race? Sexual orientation?

Obviously, and the law accommodates for this, some jobs require a person who is specifically NOT something or other, eg a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man, but in general, discrimination has to be discouraged with regulation.

As a person coming from a majority Muslim country, I'm all for equal rights for everyone. But I don't agree with this one. This case is not about race, sexual orientation, or gender. Those are things that people are born with and are not (and should never) change. It's not about religion either as nobody (apparently) asked about or rejected her because of her beliefs. It's just about her appearance. Let's say you have a fashion store or a company whatever, and your business requires a specific dress code because you're in contact with clients. Then somebody comes to you (black, white, Muslim, Jew) and says that they want to interview for the position but are not willing to follow the dress code because they think it's not appropriate for a salesperson! Hmmm... is it discrimination if you reject them?! Dress code is a totally different subject than race or gender discrimination! That's what I think at least.

What a screwed world we live in...with all efforts, experience, creativity and own money you set up a business, try to make it profitable and you can't choose the people you want to work with to make this happen?

because you end up with a society that will not employ black people or women or gays, for example. Discrimination will occur if it is not regulated.

Do you propose that society may discriminate because of religion? What about gender? Race? Sexual orientation?

Obviously, and the law accommodates for this, some jobs require a person who is specifically NOT something or other, eg a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man, but in general, discrimination has to be discouraged with regulation.

by the way in Thailand all toilets attendants for male toilets are women! But hey try to go to Iran or any arab country and go for a job application with your Hawaian shirt and shorts and dont forget your cap. Think any chance of being hired? Why should I refuse a black person if he fits my job requirements? But if somebody does not want to work on Saturday and all the other colleagues need to than no law will force me to hire this person. That they go work for the government

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously, I'm against requiring people to make unsound business decisions, but I am for business functioning within the parameters of the society, within the laws, consistently with the national culture and its norms and mores.

It is well and long established that Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that contains it are a constitutional law.

Yes business is about money but the laws are about society to include money. Government regulates the hours of the work day, minimum pay and age of work eligibility, laws pertaining to work safety, health, terms, conditions contracts, torts etc etc etc.

The CRA enforces the laws of employment and discrimination. Everyone has to honor and respect the laws. It is the right and necessary thing to do, which also means it is almost always good for the bottom line.

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously, I'm against requiring people to make unsound business decisions, but I am for business functioning within the parameters of the society, within the laws, consistently with the national culture and its norms and mores.

It is well and long established that Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that contains it are a constitutional law.

Yes business is about money but the laws are about society to include money. Government regulates the hours of the work day, minimum pay and age of work eligibility, laws pertaining to work safety, health, terms, conditions contracts, torts etc etc etc.

The CRA enforces the laws of employment and discrimination. Everyone has to honor and respect the laws. It is the right and necessary thing to do, which also means it is almost always good for the bottom line.

agree, from the moment somebody is employed you need to follow the labour law. But I decide who gets hired.

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously, I'm against requiring people to make unsound business decisions, but I am for business functioning within the parameters of the society, within the laws, consistently with the national culture and its norms and mores.

It is well and long established that Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that contains it are a constitutional law.

Yes business is about money but the laws are about society to include money. Government regulates the hours of the work day, minimum pay and age of work eligibility, laws pertaining to work safety, health, terms, conditions contracts, torts etc etc etc.

The CRA enforces the laws of employment and discrimination. Everyone has to honor and respect the laws. It is the right and necessary thing to do, which also means it is almost always good for the bottom line.

I don't agree here, minimum wage and so on.. working hours ect.. all good no problems. But not being able to decide if someone fits in a team or fits the profile of the company because they are black.. Muslim .. jew or whatever is crazy.

As a white guy when I am rejected you won't see me to go to court to get my right. But minorities.. they always feel discriminated. I make my decisions based on what is sound. I would not hire a Jew if my other employees are Muslim. I would not hire a black person if that conflicted with others that I already employ. If you got a nice group of men then I would not hire a woman.

That being said I always go for the most qualified person.. but if it messes up the team or my clients.. no way. The entitlement that some minority groups have.. its crazy. Just accept your not always the right person and stop making lawsuits over crazy things.

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously, I'm against requiring people to make unsound business decisions, but I am for business functioning within the parameters of the society, within the laws, consistently with the national culture and its norms and mores.

It is well and long established that Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that contains it are a constitutional law.

Yes business is about money but the laws are about society to include money. Government regulates the hours of the work day, minimum pay and age of work eligibility, laws pertaining to work safety, health, terms, conditions contracts, torts etc etc etc.

The CRA enforces the laws of employment and discrimination. Everyone has to honor and respect the laws. It is the right and necessary thing to do, which also means it is almost always good for the bottom line.

agree, from the moment somebody is employed you need to follow the labour law. But I decide who gets hired.

People who are free or relatively free of bigotry and prejudice are rarely the problem. It's a bit like in the army when they say a lock on your wall locker keeps an honest man honest.

Employers everywhere in the US (and in other places) decide who gets hired and necessarily make those decisions within the laws.

This is classic stage one of jihad behavior, try to use the law of the land and perpetual grievance mongering to extract concessions and preferential treatment. Should a firm have to pre-empt every potential religion based concession that may be assumed, for instance Muslim prayer rooms, separate canteens if one serves non-Halal food, or perhaps applications for leave to go on Pilgrimage, refusal to handle pork products or alcohol, refusal to let a guide dog onto a bus or taxi. All of these examples have happened. Should companies have to write a list of possible areas where Muslim religious practice conflicts with their terms of employment then do the same for all other religions?

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously, I'm against requiring people to make unsound business decisions, but I am for business functioning within the parameters of the society, within the laws, consistently with the national culture and its norms and mores.

It is well and long established that Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that contains it are a constitutional law.

Yes business is about money but the laws are about society to include money. Government regulates the hours of the work day, minimum pay and age of work eligibility, laws pertaining to work safety, health, terms, conditions contracts, torts etc etc etc.

The CRA enforces the laws of employment and discrimination. Everyone has to honor and respect the laws. It is the right and necessary thing to do, which also means it is almost always good for the bottom line.

agree, from the moment somebody is employed you need to follow the labour law. But I decide who gets hired.

People who are free or relatively free of bigotry and prejudice are rarely the problem. It's a bit like in the army when they say a lock on your wall locker keeps an honest man honest.

Employers everywhere in the US (and in other places) decide who gets hired and necessarily make those decisions within the laws.

Have you ever seen the effect of a woman getting pregnant and taking leave on a small business. I have seen it a few times and it was not pretty. (and no I have nothing against woman). Do you know how long it takes to train someone. Sure if its dumb manual labor someone is easily replaced but people doing accounting managing clients and such.. that is a lot harder.

Its has not always something to do with discrimination.. but with sound business practices. I am of the last people who would ever discriminate but I do take my business interests first.

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously, I'm against requiring people to make unsound business decisions, but I am for business functioning within the parameters of the society, within the laws, consistently with the national culture and its norms and mores.

It is well and long established that Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that contains it are a constitutional law.

Yes business is about money but the laws are about society to include money. Government regulates the hours of the work day, minimum pay and age of work eligibility, laws pertaining to work safety, health, terms, conditions contracts, torts etc etc etc.

The CRA enforces the laws of employment and discrimination. Everyone has to honor and respect the laws. It is the right and necessary thing to do, which also means it is almost always good for the bottom line.

I don't agree here, minimum wage and so on.. working hours ect.. all good no problems. But not being able to decide if someone fits in a team or fits the profile of the company because they are black.. Muslim .. jew or whatever is crazy.

As a white guy when I am rejected you won't see me to go to court to get my right. But minorities.. they always feel discriminated. I make my decisions based on what is sound. I would not hire a Jew if my other employees are Muslim. I would not hire a black person if that conflicted with others that I already employ. If you got a nice group of men then I would not hire a woman.

That being said I always go for the most qualified person.. but if it messes up the team or my clients.. no way. The entitlement that some minority groups have.. its crazy. Just accept your not always the right person and stop making lawsuits over crazy things.

The OP notes the EEOC brought this suit against a proprietary employer and to say the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is to say the federal government.

Believe it or not, the governments don't like to sue private companies or corporations. That's because it's not good for business and it's not good for government either.

The EEOC encourages and tries to facilitate the parties in a dispute to settle and put an end to it.

EEOC historically have taken to court only the most obstinate and immovable companies, those companies still living in the laissez faire 19th century. Ninety-nine percent or so of companies cooperate in the settlement process. The companies that end up in court are the ones EEOC has to subpoena to get minimal evidence to include basic statements. These corporations are almost always the biggest ones, such as in this instance.

Small business have to have at least 15 full time employees over 20 consecutive weeks for an aggrieved person to file with the EEOC.

If the government also makes up for lost revenue and friction in a team then I am all for those rules.

Small businesses in the Netherlands have a lot of problems when they hire a female and she gets pregnant. Yes its a human right.. but its an inconvenience for a business. Why should business owners need to take non sound business decisions.

I have hired a female.. and now she is pregnant ( i knew it could happen ) but its still not easy on the business. She is my brothers wife but I can see the problems stuff like this causes in small businesses. Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously I am against discrimination.. but to force people to make unsound business decisions is unfair.

Seriously, I'm against requiring people to make unsound business decisions, but I am for business functioning within the parameters of the society, within the laws, consistently with the national culture and its norms and mores.

It is well and long established that Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that contains it are a constitutional law.

Yes business is about money but the laws are about society to include money. Government regulates the hours of the work day, minimum pay and age of work eligibility, laws pertaining to work safety, health, terms, conditions contracts, torts etc etc etc.

The CRA enforces the laws of employment and discrimination. Everyone has to honor and respect the laws. It is the right and necessary thing to do, which also means it is almost always good for the bottom line.

I don't agree here, minimum wage and so on.. working hours ect.. all good no problems. But not being able to decide if someone fits in a team or fits the profile of the company because they are black.. Muslim .. jew or whatever is crazy.

As a white guy when I am rejected you won't see me to go to court to get my right. But minorities.. they always feel discriminated. I make my decisions based on what is sound. I would not hire a Jew if my other employees are Muslim. I would not hire a black person if that conflicted with others that I already employ. If you got a nice group of men then I would not hire a woman.

That being said I always go for the most qualified person.. but if it messes up the team or my clients.. no way. The entitlement that some minority groups have.. its crazy. Just accept your not always the right person and stop making lawsuits over crazy things.

The OP notes the EEOC brought this suit against a proprietary employer and to say the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is to say the federal government.

Believe it or not, the governments don't like to sue private companies or corporations. That's because it's not good for business and it's not good for government either.

The EEOC encourages and tries to facilitate the parties in a dispute to settle and put an end to it.

EEOC historically have taken to court only the most obstinate and immovable companies, those companies still living in the laissez faire 19th century. Ninety-nine percent or so of companies cooperate in the settlement process. The companies that end up in court are the ones EEOC has to subpoena to get minimal evidence to include basic statements. These corporations are almost always the biggest ones, such as in this instance.

Small business have to have at least 15 full time employees over 20 consecutive weeks for an aggrieved person to file with the EEOC.

I don't know the rules in the US but that sounds quite fair, when I am talking small business I am talking far smaller as 15 employees. Can you imagine if you have 2 employees.. and one gets pregnant. Its a major hassle, I have seen it when I was working as an employee in an accounting firm. It caused lots of problems as the lady in question was quite knowledgeable and hard to replace especially for just a few months.

Its far harder to accommodate everyone in small teams.. easier in bigger companies.

While it has no relation to the specific instance of this topic :

I got an Email from a friend in Australia yesterday she told of leaving her job of seventeen and a half years because the company had hired a new Pakistani Muslim manager who was anti woman and had made it impossible for her to stay in the job, she said all the other women who worked there were also on the point of leaving.

She could neither understand his attitude or why the company had hired him.

While it has no relation to the specific instance of this topic :

I got an Email from a friend in Australia yesterday she told of leaving her job of seventeen and a half years because the company had hired a new Pakistani Muslim manager who was anti woman and had made it impossible for her to stay in the job, she said all the other women who worked there were also on the point of leaving.

She could neither understand his attitude or why the company had hired him.

This sense among the employees is why these anti-discrimination laws and agencies exist, in the US, Australia and elsewhere.

She would need to identify the discrimination then file a charge with the government agency. Sounds like the charge is sex discrimination but it could be but not necessarily limited to national origin or on the basis of religion, possibly skin color and other particulars in the laws.

Generally speaking, the more employees that file a charge of discrimination the more data and pattern and practice can be found if it exists, so in these respects there is a strength in numbers in addition to whatever the merits may be.

Filing with the appropriate government agency may amount to nothing but the point is that relief is available and possible and that not all hope is yet lost. Just to approach it realistically.

'... the policy ... prohibited wearing headscarves or anything in black.' And the court viewed that as religious discrimination? How the hell could it have been, when it applied to all employees, religious or not?