Muslim woman sues Abercrombie & Fitch over hijab

[jimnyc]

A story about a Muslim woman who was originally hired by A&F while wearing a hijab but some months later was told she no longer can. Blah Blah Blah... Why should ANY company have allow someone to dress THEY want to? WHY is America slowly but surely having to abide by more and more the way muslims live? Maybe THEY should adapt to America?

Can you imagine seeing one of the Ayatollah's or Dictator in a muslim country and demanding that private companies need to allow them to more freely accept your Christianity into the store and make more changes to be even more accepting? How many steps do you get away before you hear the head that was just lopped off hit the floor? I say 3-5 steps.

If YOU want to EARN money, you do what your employer wants and you adhere to their dress code. End of story. Don't like it find a more suitable employer. But Welcome to America, land of PC and lawsuit lotteries!

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/muslim-woman-sues-abercrombie-fitch-over-hijab-183000672.html

[Gaffer]

It's the usual using the courts to force laws on the rest of us. Stealth jihad in action.

[Gunny]

A story about a Muslim woman who was originally hired by A&F while wearing a hijab but some months later was told she no longer can. Blah Blah Blah... Why should ANY company have allow someone to dress THEY want to? WHY is America slowly but surely having to abide by more and more the way muslims live? Maybe THEY should adapt to America?

Can you imagine seeing one of the Ayatollah's or Dictator in a muslim country and demanding that private companies need to allow them to more freely accept your Christianity into the store and make more changes to be even more accepting? How many steps do you get away before you hear the head that was just lopped off hit the floor? I say 3-5 steps.

If YOU want to EARN money, you do what your employer wants and you adhere to their dress code. End of story. Don't like it find a more suitable employer. But Welcome to America, land of PC and lawsuit lotteries!

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/muslim-woman-sues-abercrombie-fitch-over-hijab-183000672.html

Just another case of trying to twist out laws and use them against us. Try just walking down the street at night with a ski mask on and see what kind of attention you get.

Time after time we see Christian religious symbols/Christianity attacked by the very folks who say we're being racist or anti-Muslim because they should be allowed to disguise themselves in public.

Sadly, I expect no less from the hypocrites.

[fj1200]

A story about a Muslim woman who was originally hired by A&F while wearing a hijab but some months later was told she no longer can.

They shouldn't have changed their policy midstream and just not hired her. That has its own problems it seems:

In 2009, Samantha Elauf, who was 17 at the time, filed a federal lawsuit in Oklahoma, alleging the company rejected her for a job because she was wearing a hijab. That case is still ongoing.
The big question is can they defend their policy.

A&F has some problems and did some things wrong but I think the pendulum has swung too far away from the rights of a private enterprise to conduct its business how it feels. But:

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco...
They're toast.

She's dead wrong about this:

"Growing up in this country where the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, I felt let down," Khan, now a college student studying political science, said at a news conference. "This case is about principles, the right to be able to express your religion freely and be able to work in this country."

This case isn't about freedom of religion, it's really about mandating the behavior of private enterprise.

[DragonStryk72]

In this case they are in the wrong:


Hani Khan said a manager at the company's Hollister Co. store at the Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo hired her while she was wearing her hijab. The manager said it was OK to wear it as long as it was in company colors, Khan said.

Four months later, the 20-year-old says a district manager and human resources manager asked if she could remove the hijab while working, and she was suspended and then fired for refusing to do so.

Okay, so she was abiding by what the employer stated was the requirement, wearing it in company colors for four months. They hired her, knowing she was required to wear it as a part of her religion, and were apparently fine with it for a little under half a year. As well, she's in the stockroom, so it's not like she was with the customers.

She did everything she was supposed to do, and ended up getting fired for something the property said was perfectly fine. That is wrong.

[Kathianne]

In this case they are in the wrong:



Okay, so she was abiding by what the employer stated was the requirement, wearing it in company colors for four months. They hired her, knowing she was required to wear it as a part of her religion, and were apparently fine with it for a little under half a year. As well, she's in the stockroom, so it's not like she was with the customers.

She did everything she was supposed to do, and ended up getting fired for something the property said was perfectly fine. That is wrong.

Normally I'd agree with you, her being in the 'stockroom' and all. However having worked in retail outlets I know that the stockroom people prepare the clothing for the floor, then bring it out to the floor, often assembling the displays. During these times, which are not short, they are expected to interact with customers if approached. I worked at Limited in high school and college, they also had 'a look.' Everyone, including the stock people had to wear Limited clothing. The 'boys' were expected to wear what would now be A & F type of clothing, though at the time Eddie Bauer or Mark Shale.

[fj1200]

Normally I'd agree with you...

A&F's problem is that it was OK for "some months" and then it wasn't. They didn't abide by their own policy which is an automatic guilty.

[Kathianne]

A&F's problem is that it was OK for "some months" and then it wasn't. They didn't abide by their own policy which is an automatic guilty.

Perhaps. If they can show the store manager violated established corporate policy? Was he reprimanded at the same time? If so, a case may be made.

[logroller]

This sounds to me like a localized managerial issue, not that of company policy. As the policy allowed her to wear it, so long as it fit the uniform palette, she has no legitiment claim for religious persecution by the company; she's due something for wrongful termination, as the management swithed their position on policy, but that's it.

Kind of a side note, but I worked at fedex as a courier from '99 to '04. After 9/11 the company changed its policy regarding facial hair (once was mustache only); a move, no doubt, towards religious tolerance. No one at my location were of a belief forbidding shaving, but many grew goatees and beards once we were able to. Made getting ready in the morning easier too; whereas previously, we were given a disposable razor if we were unshaven.

[jimnyc]

In this case they are in the wrong:



Okay, so she was abiding by what the employer stated was the requirement, wearing it in company colors for four months. They hired her, knowing she was required to wear it as a part of her religion, and were apparently fine with it for a little under half a year. As well, she's in the stockroom, so it's not like she was with the customers.

She did everything she was supposed to do, and ended up getting fired for something the property said was perfectly fine. That is wrong.

You need to brush up on employment law. Just because an employer allowed an action or set of actions for a period of months, does not immediately mean their current actions are illegal. For this woman to win, she would need to prove the actions were illegal under the states laws or the discrimination act, Title XVii.

No different than if they allowed an earring as part of someones code and than changed their mind. I understand this woman is muslim, but as long as they make a REASONABLE accommodation under the law, they have satisfied their side. Their are plenty of other things that they can do, but the only reasonable one I can see is giving her time and a place to pray. Allowing her to APPEAR different against the companies own LOOK policy, in itself is not reasonable to expect.

What is she applied at hooters and was shot down because of her hijab? Would they be employing illegal hiring practices? Or does it only become illegal if they let her do so for a few months and then halt the action.

IMO, a company look policy should trump the feelings of someones personal and/or religious preferences - other than hiring/firing them for just belonging or being one. Hire a muslim, fine. Hire a Catholic, fine. BUT, you must adhere to our company policies - AND we are allowed to change our policies at any time. I feel the same about this whether it's a muslim, jewish, catholic or woman of any other religion.

[jimnyc]

A&F's problem is that it was OK for "some months" and then it wasn't. They didn't abide by their own policy which is an automatic guilty.

Not abiding by their own policy and then correcting that action is NOT and automatic guilty. Can you cite employment law that backs you up?

Someone made a mistake. They probably saw how that mistake played out for several months and probably received a complaint or 2. They took corrective action with one of their employees.

Company policy VERY rarely rises to the level of a contract, or to the laws of the state/s. If you can prove otherwise, I would love to read it. I'm a law nut and especially with employment law. I'm always looking to learn more and learn from my mistakes, which admittedly are often!

[DragonStryk72]

You need to brush up on employment law. Just because an employer allowed an action or set of actions for a period of months, does not immediately mean their current actions are illegal. For this woman to win, she would need to prove the actions were illegal under the states laws or the discrimination act, Title XVii.

No different than if they allowed an earring as part of someones code and than changed their mind. I understand this woman is muslim, but as long as they make a REASONABLE accommodation under the law, they have satisfied their side. Their are plenty of other things that they can do, but the only reasonable one I can see is giving her time and a place to pray. Allowing her to APPEAR different against the companies own LOOK policy, in itself is not reasonable to expect.

What is she applied at hooters and was shot down because of her hijab? Would they be employing illegal hiring practices? Or does it only become illegal if they let her do so for a few months and then halt the action.

IMO, a company look policy should trump the feelings of someones personal and/or religious preferences - other than hiring/firing them for just belonging or being one. Hire a muslim, fine. Hire a Catholic, fine. BUT, you must adhere to our company policies - AND we are allowed to change our policies at any time. I feel the same about this whether it's a muslim, jewish, catholic or woman of any other religion.

Well, for one, her religious beliefs would prevent her from working at Hooters on moral grounds, for one, so apples and oranges there. And again, she got proper authorization, so unless you can show proof that A&F changed their policy regarding the hijab, she's pretty much got the right of it here. It was authorized, so she was well within her rights here. And if A&F did specifically put in a provision against the hijab, then guess what? That pretty blatant discrimination, same as if they then put in a blatant policy against wearing a cross, even under your shirt.

A&F, as well, isn't a first time offender. There were their thongs marketed for 10-year old girls, and they had a padded bra bikini for 7-years old girls, and then there's their "Look Policy". They are really discriminatory, Jim. Here we have a story of a girl banished to the stockroom because she has a prosthetic arm:

http://jezebel.com/5289492/abercrombie-banishes-girl-with-prosthetic-arm-to-storeroom-because-she-doesnt-fit-the-look-policy

It also references another article where A&F got sued because they wouldn't put any non-White in as sales staff, putting them in the stockroom. Then there was the suit against them for A&F forcing employees to wear only A&F clothing that they had to buy out of pocket from the store.

[jimnyc]

Well, for one, her religious beliefs would prevent her from working at Hooters on moral grounds, for one, so apples and oranges there.

No, it's the same, it would be an employer not allowing her hijab. Whether she would/wouldn't apply for such a job is irrelevant. It goes to show that employers can and will have a strict dress policy and have the right to change that policy.


And again, she got proper authorization, so unless you can show proof that A&F changed their policy regarding the hijab, she's pretty much got the right of it here.

She got proper authorization, or nobody stated anything in the beginning? Getting away with not adhering to company policy doesn't negate the companies desire to enforce the policy in the future.


It was authorized, so she was well within her rights here. And if A&F did specifically put in a provision against the hijab, then guess what? That pretty blatant discrimination, same as if they then put in a blatant policy against wearing a cross, even under your shirt.

Again, authorized or overlooked? Now putting a cross under your shirt and wearing a hijab IS apples and oranges. One adheres to a "look" while the other makes her obviously look different. And again, MOST DISCRIMINATION is 100% legal, unless there is a specific law making it illegal.


A&F, as well, isn't a first time offender. There were their thongs marketed for 10-year old girls, and they had a padded bra bikini for 7-years old girls, and then there's their "Look Policy". They are really discriminatory, Jim. Here we have a story of a girl banished to the stockroom because she has a prosthetic arm:

http://jezebel.com/5289492/abercrombie-banishes-girl-with-prosthetic-arm-to-storeroom-because-she-doesnt-fit-the-look-policy

It also references another article where A&F got sued because they wouldn't put any non-White in as sales staff, putting them in the stockroom. Then there was the suit against them for A&F forcing employees to wear only A&F clothing that they had to buy out of pocket from the store.

First off, past offenses have no standing with the current situation. Each one stands on it's own legal merits. We're now discussing muslims forcing US owned companies to allow them to wear hijabs. What if they next want to wear full veils, as many muslims feel this is within their religious views. Should the law protect them and allow workers to stand around looking like egg crates?

Btw - while the same company, your reference to the girl with the prosthetic arm was outside of the US and totally different employment laws will apply. She ultimately won her case, and I believe she would have here in the US too. Again, THAT'S apples and oranges. You're comparing a persons limb to a religious scarf that covers a persons head and makes them stand out like a sore thumb. One has a choice, one doesn't.

[fj1200]

Not abiding by their own policy and then correcting that action is NOT and automatic guilty. Can you cite employment law that backs you up?

I hope you're referring to case law because it's unlikely to be codified.


Someone made a mistake. They probably saw how that mistake played out for several months and probably received a complaint or 2. They took corrective action with one of their employees.

She worked for "some months" under the implied contract of wearing her hijab and then she was informed that she could no longer wear it. So who would be at fault, her for working for doing the same thing every day for "some months" or the company whose very job it is to know their own policy?


Company policy VERY rarely rises to the level of a contract, or to the laws of the state/s. If you can prove otherwise, I would love to read it. I'm a law nut and especially with employment law. I'm always looking to learn more and learn from my mistakes, which admittedly are often!

Company policy is codified in the handbook and the handbook is part of the employment contract. BTW did you read the entire article? A&F has a history of getting their ass handed to them in court cases and settlements.

[fj1200]

Perhaps. If they can show the store manager violated established corporate policy? Was he reprimanded at the same time? If so, a case may be made.

That wouldn't matter to her case, the manager is the one who should be up on corporate policy especially something so critical as their Look Policy.

[jimnyc]

I hope you're referring to case law because it's unlikely to be codified.

Yes, it's got case law to cite but you won't find written protection. All we have now is a judge or jury deciding if it conforms to their belief and/or interpretations of Title Vii. Hence the fact I stated "not automatically" guilty as right now each case is treated separate and the outcomes have a lot of room for leeway.


She worked for "some months" under the implied contract of wearing her hijab and then she was informed that she could no longer wear it. So who would be at fault, her for working for doing the same thing every day for "some months" or the company whose very job it is to know their own policy?

An implied contract won't float. All of A&F's employees work under "At will" employment. You can quit whenever you want but they can fire you whenever and wherever they want - so long as it's doesn't violate any laws. So again, not conforming to it's own policy is not against the law and therefore quite legal. Whether or not they play a part in a courts decision is left to be seen. But my stance is that an employer doesn't lose the right to enforce their own company policy if it failed to do so immediately in a particular circumstance. Imagine if others skimmed by and once you reach a certain amount of days you are automatically immune from their policy?


Company policy is codified in the handbook and the handbook is part of the employment contract. BTW did you read the entire article? A&F has a history of getting their ass handed to them in court cases and settlements.

Sorry, no contract. Unless it's a WRITTEN CONTRACT, you neither have a contract OR implied contract - you have "employment at will".

[jimnyc]

That wouldn't matter to her case, the manager is the one who should be up on corporate policy especially something so critical as their Look Policy.

How many days before a managers failure to enforce a rule must go by before it no longer can apply to an employee? What is the penalty for failure to adhere to these codes?

Please show me ANY laws that would make it mandatory for this... Once you realize you can't find the laws, you will realize because their is no law. Without a law against it, it is therefore legal. Fair? No one guarantees that either, but it only has one of 2 categories - illegal or legal, and it's very easy in most cases as if there is no law covering it, it's legal.

[fj1200]

Yes, it's got case law to cite but you won't find written protection. All we have now is a judge or jury deciding if it conforms to their belief and/or interpretations of Title Vii. Hence the fact I stated "not automatically" guilty as right now each case is treated separate and the outcomes have a lot of room for leeway.

Thank you, it's called precedent.

This isn't a Title VII case, it's about wrongful termination. She didn't change her behavior, accepted for "some months," and was then terminated. Religious discrimination is for the media.


An implied contract won't float. All of A&F's employees work under "At will" employment. You can quit whenever you want but they can fire you whenever and wherever they want - so long as it's doesn't violate any laws. So again, not conforming to it's own policy is not against the law and therefore quite legal. Whether or not they play a part in a courts decision is left to be seen. But my stance is that an employer doesn't lose the right to enforce their own company policy if it failed to do so immediately in a particular circumstance. Imagine if others skimmed by and once you reach a certain amount of days you are automatically immune from their policy?

Oh yes it will, they can't terminate without cause and/or in a discriminatory manner.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in that last sentence but it is up to management to ensure that all are following company policy.


Sorry, no contract. Unless it's a WRITTEN CONTRACT, you neither have a contract OR implied contract - you have "employment at will".

The handbook IS written.


A recent state court decision will impact HR policy nationally. The court upheld that a company could not alter an employee handbook when the content contains a policy which has become part of an employment contract.
http://humanresources.about.com/od/handbookspolicies/Handbooks_and_Policy_Manuals_Samples.htm


Not only does it set forth your expectations for your employees, but it also describes what they can expect from the company. It is essential that your company has one and that it be clear and as unambiguous as possible. Misunderstandings or misstatements can create legal liabilities for your business. In legal disputes courts have considered an employee handbook to be a contractual obligation, so word it carefully.
http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/managing-your-business/employee-handbook.html

[fj1200]

How many days before a managers failure to enforce a rule must go by before it no longer can apply to an employee? What is the penalty for failure to adhere to these codes?

Please show me ANY laws that would make it mandatory for this... Once you realize you can't find the laws, you will realize because their is no law. Without a law against it, it is therefore legal. Fair? No one guarantees that either, but it only has one of 2 categories - illegal or legal, and it's very easy in most cases as if there is no law covering it, it's legal.

I didn't say that there were any specific laws but plenty of case law is out there. Just because it isn't codified doesn't mean it's acceptable.

I hope you're not A&F's attorney advising them on this. Why do you think that businesses detail their disciplinary actions against employees? It's so that they can document their case if a terminated employee claims wrongful termination.

[jimnyc]

Thank you, it's called precedent.

This isn't a Title VII case, it's about wrongful termination. She didn't change her behavior, accepted for "some months," and was then terminated. Religious discrimination is for the media.

I suggest you read up about this case. The lawyers have already stated they are fighting this case based on Title vii from the 60's. And just an Fyi - they are going at it via Title Vii, which is the reason for the wrongful termination. No Title 7 violation and you have no wrongful termination.


Oh yes it will, they can't terminate without cause and/or in a discriminatory manner.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in that last sentence but it is up to management to ensure that all are following company policy.

What I am saying is that regardless of whether management screwed up it's own policy or not, there is no law negating them from therefore further enforcing their policy.


The handbook IS written.


http://humanresources.about.com/od/handbookspolicies/Handbooks_and_Policy_Manuals_Samples.htm


http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/managing-your-business/employee-handbook.html

A handbook does not rise to the level of a written contract. Many, many lawsuits over the years have favored the companies. 99 out of 100 times a contract will not come out of a companies handbook. In very, very rare instances their were a few crappy written handbooks where certain portions were written in a manner that made it so. Something tells me A&F is not dumb enough to have "legal" go over these books and not ensure they are offering contracts.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say that there were any specific laws but plenty of case law is out there. Just because it isn't codified doesn't mean it's acceptable.

I hope you're not A&F's attorney advising them on this. Why do you think that businesses detail their disciplinary actions against employees? It's so that they can document their case if a terminated employee claims wrongful termination.

If you don't like my analysis, then PROVE me wrong. You haven't disputed jack shit yet, but I'm up for further attempts. AGAIN, without a law on the books making something ILLEGAL, IT IS THEREFORE LEGAL. This is employment law 101. It may not be acceptable, and in rare instances it can get around without law violations, but generally "not fair" means NOTHING in employment law.

How a company dictates it's policy is certainly written in a way to protect their company. But again, it does not give an employee a contract.

[Nukeman]

OK, here's my 2 cents worth. having worked in healthcare for over 20 years I have to say I have had a NUMBER of changes in appearence. We have run the gammut of No facial hair to tightly cropped, No jewlrey to little. We have gone from kahkis and button up shirts with lab coats to scrubs. Hard leather shoes to tennis shoes. Dress code is determined by the employer.. period....

The point I am making is that it is up to the EMPLOYER to determine what is and is not appropriate to wear, not the employee. many forget that while you are on the clock the company owns your time and essentialy owns you and your expertise while they pay you....

I don't care if she worked there for 4 months or 4 years ultimately the company sets teh standard adn if you don't like it tough, they also have the RIGHT to revoke any special waivers they may have set up. I would think that the 4 months she worked could have been a trial period and at the end it was determined it was NOT working.. She just needs to chalk it up as a learning exoeience. this freaking country is too sue crazy... everyone looks for the easy buck...

[jimnyc]

OK, here's my 2 cents worth. having worked in healthcare for over 20 years I have to say I have had a NUMBER of changes in appearence. We have run the gammut of No facial hair to tightly cropped, No jewlrey to little. We have gone from kahkis and button up shirts with lab coats to scrubs. Hard leather shoes to tennis shoes. Dress code is determined by the employer.. period....

The point I am making is that it is up to the EMPLOYER to determine what is and is not appropriate to wear, not the employee. many forget that while you are on the clock the company owns your time and essentialy owns you and your expertise while they pay you....

I don't care if she worked there for 4 months or 4 years ultimately the company sets teh standard adn if you don't like it tough, they also have the RIGHT to revoke any special waivers they may have set up. I would think that the 4 months she worked could have been a trial period and at the end it was determined it was NOT working.. She just needs to chalk it up as a learning exoeience. this freaking country is too sue crazy... everyone looks for the easy buck...

They are claiming that a dress policy is fine - but that A&F needs to make an accommodation for her based on her religious beliefs.

In my opinion, unless someone has a contract, they should have to wear whatever their employer wants them to, or find other employment.

Same thing with the Disney case where the same thing happened, and they allowed her to wear it before it finished in the courts. First they offered her a "Disney" version to fit into the area she was working, but she refused. Rather than pay huge law fees probably, they just allowed it. Yeah, there's Mickey, and Donald, and Minnie, and the Princess, oh and a woman with a veil that fits in like a sore thumb. IMO, Disney has a LOOK POLICY as well and certainly shouldn't change in this type of case as it changes public perception of what Disney does and could potentially hit their registers.

[Abbey Marie]

A&F (and their sister company, Hollister) hire based on LOOKS.
It's well known that they groom their models from their retail workforce. As is their right.
How this girl got hired in the first place is weird.

[fj1200]

I suggest you read up about this case. The lawyers have already stated they are fighting this case based on Title vii from the 60's. And just an Fyi - they are going at it via Title Vii, which is the reason for the wrongful termination. No Title 7 violation and you have no wrongful termination.

Disagreed but perhaps this is why they're going after religious discrimination:

The lawsuit requests back pay and punitive damages, but her attorney says her top priority is for Abercrombie & Fitch to change its “look policy” to allow for religiously mandated attire.
http://southsanfrancisco.patch.com/articles/woman-shocked-over-headscarf-firing


What I am saying is that regardless of whether management screwed up it's own policy or not, there is no law negating them from therefore further enforcing their policy.

Has all precedent been overturned while I was away?


A handbook does not rise to the level of a written contract. Many, many lawsuits over the years have favored the companies. 99 out of 100 times a contract will not come out of a companies handbook. In very, very rare instances their were a few crappy written handbooks where certain portions were written in a manner that made it so. Something tells me A&F is not dumb enough to have "legal" go over these books and not ensure they are offering contracts.

It's a part of the implied contract no matter how a lawyer writes it.


If you don't like my analysis, then PROVE me wrong. You haven't disputed jack shit yet, but I'm up for further attempts. AGAIN, without a law on the books making something ILLEGAL, IT IS THEREFORE LEGAL. This is employment law 101. It may not be acceptable, and in rare instances it can get around without law violations, but generally "not fair" means NOTHING in employment law.

How a company dictates it's policy is certainly written in a way to protect their company. But again, it does not give an employee a contract.

However will I counter all of those links that you've provided? :rolleyes:

[logroller]

That wouldn't matter to her case, the manager is the one who should be up on corporate policy especially something so critical as their Look Policy.

Employees of private companies have no right to freedom of speech, which is why they can implement a dress code. This really hinges on the policy. Did the policy change or just the application of it? In this case it appears the dress code didn't change, only its application; but why? If they had a policy which stated no hats or headwear- then it surely was noted in the employee manual. If she was allowed to wear one during and after her probationary period, she was granted a de facto waiver, and an at-will termination for that reason is wrongful.

[jimnyc]

Disagreed but perhaps this is why they're going after religious discrimination:

http://southsanfrancisco.patch.com/articles/woman-shocked-over-headscarf-firing

Yes, as I said, she was fired for failure to remove her headscarf. They state this is religious discrimination and they made no accommodation. Therefore they contend it is a wrongful termination. If they cannot prove Title Vii has been violated - there is no religious discrimination.


Has all precedent been overturned while I was away?


Ok, provide precedence...


It's a part of the implied contract no matter how a lawyer writes it.


Provide employment law that shows a handbook is always an implied contract. I'm betting you'll find it is in instances where worded wrong and has been found NOT to be in most cases. You will also find in many instances just clearly stating in the book that the employee is "at will" will suffice. But "automatic" or "always" - not even close.


However will I counter all of those links that you've provided? :rolleyes:

And I'll counter them with all of the proof you've asked for. Ask away, I'll be more than happy to show what I've stated thus far is either law, has precedence or is not illegal.

[jimnyc]

However will I counter all of those links that you've provided? :rolleyes:

Just realized this was directed solely at my comments about a handbook not rising to the level of an implied contract. I thought it was general in nature. Nonetheless, I will be happy to provide citations for whatever you ask.

As for not giving the employee a contract, as I stated (as well as a company covering its ass, and how the wording can keep it from becoming a contract - directly from a law firms website:


3. An implied contract may alter the employee’s at will status.

In the absence of any indication to the contrary, an employee is assumed to be hired on an at will basis. However, Massachusetts courts recognize that even in the absence of an express contract for other than at will employment, there may be an implied contract. Often, employees assert the existence of an implied contract based on the terms of an employee handbook. Under appropriate circumstances, such a handbook can be a binding implied contract, modifying the terms of employment.

However, to establish that the handbook is an implied contract, the employee must show that, “considering the context of the manual’s preparation and distribution as well as its specific provisions, an employee would be objectively reasonable in regarding the manual as a legally enforceable commitment concerning the terms and conditions of employment.” While a number of factors are relevant to this determination, a handbook is unlikely to form the basis of an implied contract if the employer reserves the right to unilaterally modify the terms of the manual.

An employer should definitely consult an attorney when drafting its employee handbook.
http://www.barronstad.com/resources/employment_law/at_will_employment

I trust such a major company as Hollister aka A&F would be smart enough to use their legal team when drafting handbooks.

So again, it will come down to a courts decision as to whether or not they violated Title Vii

[jimnyc]

A good read from a California attorney, where this particular A&F is located:


Employment-related claims are the fastest growing area of litigation in California. Defending claims such as sexual harassment, disability and pregnancy discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy and breach of implied contract have become more commonplace for companies, regardless of their size.

Although a well-crafted employee handbook that is closely adhered to by supervisors and managers cannot prevent an employee or former employee from bringing an employment-related lawsuit against an employer, it can go a long way toward avoiding or minimizing employer liability.

Employee handbooks and written employment policies are not required under California law. However, in addition to potentially minimizing liability, employee handbooks -- if drafted and implemented effectively -- can serve as a helpful management tool.

An effective employee manual reserves rights on behalf of the employer that it might not otherwise have in dealing with employees, such as workplace inspections, drug testing and making changes to benefits.

It also provides notice to employees of the company's expectations, along with the consequences if its standards are not met, and promotes uniformity and consistency with respect to the implementation of the employer's policies, reducing the possibility of inconsistent treatment of similarly situated employees. In addition, the manual can be used to provide a ready reference guide for employees regarding company rules, procedures, and policies.

Moreover, one of the most important functions of an employee handbook is to confirm the "at-will" nature of the employment relationship, meaning both the employer or employee can terminate the relationship at any time without notice or reason. To prevent claims of an implied contract for termination for good cause only based on alleged assurances by supervisors and managers or other circumstances, employers should require employees to sign an acknowledgment regarding their receipt of the handbook and their understanding of the at-will nature of employment.

http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20060810cra

[DragonStryk72]

A&F (and their sister company, Hollister) hire based on LOOKS.
It's well known that they groom their models from their retail workforce. As is their right.
How this girl got hired in the first place is weird.

She got shoved in the stockroom so that she wouldn't be seen on the sales floor. Then, apparently, the hijab was too big a problem for the warehouse work. A&F are getting what they deserve, really. They CAN have pretty much whatever policy they like, just as irate employees CAN sue them for it.

[jimnyc]

She got shoved in the stockroom so that she wouldn't be seen on the sales floor. Then, apparently, the hijab was too big a problem for the warehouse work. A&F are getting what they deserve, really. They CAN have pretty much whatever policy they like, just as irate employees CAN sue them for it.

So you agree then that Muslim women working there should be able to wear the full body veils if that is part of their particular religion? This would require full body, face and head covering with absolutely nothing showing. If you open a can of worms of allowing religious groups to dictate the dress policy, then you cannot discriminate against another. Next thing you know the place looks like an egg crate.

[gabosaurus]

A story about a Muslim woman who was originally hired by A&F while wearing a hijab but some months later was told she no longer can.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/muslim-woman-sues-abercrombie-fitch-over-hijab-183000672.html

The woman who hired her should have immediately told the woman that her dress was not proper. If the woman was told, she has no case. If the woman had worn the garb for some months and then was told, the store manager should be fired.
In either case, the woman has no case.
Though why a Muslim would want to work for A&F is beyond me.

[Nukeman]

She got shoved in the stockroom so that she wouldn't be seen on the sales floor. Then, apparently, the hijab was too big a problem for the warehouse work. A&F are getting what they deserve, really. They CAN have pretty much whatever policy they like, just as irate employees CAN sue them for it.
I generaly agree with most of what you have to say but on this I am in complete oppostion..

She DOES NOT have the right to sue... period... thats the freaking problem with this country.. "don't like something" sue em... Most staes have employment at will. the reason most coompanies go through a thurough process of maintaining discipline records is just so they don't ahve the threat of lawsuits. they do this so some one can't come back and say it was for discriminatory reasons. Now this girl knew how they looked at the store, she knew she would not work on the floor, she knew their policy and their look, if not she's an F"ing idiot.. Like posted before I would have listed her as a "trial" or "probationary" employee so if i wanted to I could fire for any and all reasons... Most companies have these for 3-6 months of a new hire..

[DragonStryk72]

The woman who hired her should have immediately told the woman that her dress was not proper. If the woman was told, she has no case. If the woman had worn the garb for some months and then was told, the store manager should be fired.
In either case, the woman has no case.
Though why a Muslim would want to work for A&F is beyond me.

That pesky rent thing that landlords insist you pay every single month. Also, alot of people don't realize how shitty their hiring practices really are. As it states in the article, she was approved for the hijab by her manager. But they have these "look police" who go through the stores, and can overrule a manager.

[jimnyc]

That pesky rent thing that landlords insist you pay every single month. Also, alot of people don't realize how shitty their hiring practices really are. As it states in the article, she was approved for the hijab by her manager. But they have these "look police" who go through the stores, and can overrule a manager.

However shitty their practices are (the absolute horror of them wanting people to look a certain way so THEIR BUSINESS makes money) - so long as they treat everyone equally they should be fine. I highly doubt they will allow other religious garb that will stand out so much, so they shouldn't have to do so for this woman.

[DragonStryk72]

I generaly agree with most of what you have to say but on this I am in complete oppostion..

She DOES NOT have the right to sue... period... thats the freaking problem with this country.. "don't like something" sue em... Most staes have employment at will. the reason most coompanies go through a thurough process of maintaining discipline records is just so they don't ahve the threat of lawsuits. they do this so some one can't come back and say it was for discriminatory reasons. Now this girl knew how they looked at the store, she knew she would not work on the floor, she knew their policy and their look, if not she's an F"ing idiot.. Like posted before I would have listed her as a "trial" or "probationary" employee so if i wanted to I could fire for any and all reasons... Most companies have these for 3-6 months of a new hire..

You're right, she's not an idiot. this is why she got the approval of her manager, who I'm guessing noticed her wearing the hijab when she was hired. they sort of stand out. For four months she was a good employee, apparently. At what point does a manager become responsible? She did everything she was supposed to do, period. She was wrongfully terminated, period.

[DragonStryk72]

However shitty their practices are (the absolute horror of them wanting people to look a certain way so THEIR BUSINESS makes money) - so long as they treat everyone equally they should be fine. I highly doubt they will allow other religious garb that will stand out so much, so they shouldn't have to do so for this woman.

Wait, so you're saying that a well dressed black man can't sell their clothing? Cause that's part of their "look" policy, btw. They've been nailed on that one previously. Then there's the girl who got shafted because she has a prosthetic arm. How many people do they have to discriminate against, jim, before it's discriminatory?

And she is not on the sales floor, and has no interaction with customers. She was in the stockroom, which is where they banish you if you don't precisely fit their look. The point is they don't treat everyone equally. And again, they knew about the hijab, and approved it for four months.

[jimnyc]

Wait, so you're saying that a well dressed black man can't sell their clothing? Cause that's part of their "look" policy, btw. They've been nailed on that one previously. Then there's the girl who got shafted because she has a prosthetic arm. How many people do they have to discriminate against, jim, before it's discriminatory?

And she is not on the sales floor, and has no interaction with customers. She was in the stockroom, which is where they banish you if you don't precisely fit their look. The point is they don't treat everyone equally. And again, they knew about the hijab, and approved it for four months.

Failure to follow company policy does not allow for an employee to ignore the policy forever. They caught on and tried to get her to adhere. Someone prior to that screwed up.

They go for an "all american" look, so a black man would fit in just fine. A muslim women would fit in just fine too, so long as she doesn't wear a hijab.

[jimnyc]

You're right, she's not an idiot. this is why she got the approval of her manager, who I'm guessing noticed her wearing the hijab when she was hired. they sort of stand out. For four months she was a good employee, apparently. At what point does a manager become responsible? She did everything she was supposed to do, period. She was wrongfully terminated, period.

So how many days does it take before it's no longer a mistake and becomes policy. Please be specific...

[Nukeman]

You're right, she's not an idiot. this is why she got the approval of her manager, who I'm guessing noticed her wearing the hijab when she was hired. they sort of stand out. For four months she was a good employee, apparently. At what point does a manager become responsible? She did everything she was supposed to do, period. She was wrongfully terminated, period.

Acually she was hired under "false pretenses". She should not have been hired in the first place without being told that she COULD NOT wear the hijab.

I will guess the manager was "afraid" not to hire her on the chance she would sue him for discrimination!!! low and behold look what she did when corporate found out. They, NOT the store manager have the final say in how the look of a place is set. The manager made a mistake, hell maybe he is family friends with them and thought he could get away with something, I dont know and neither do you.

So to say she was "wrongfully terminated" is false, she was hired "under false pretenses" and inaccurate information. Happens all the time why is she special or different??

[jimnyc]

I will guess the manager was "afraid" not to hire her on the chance she would sue him for discrimination!!! low and behold look what she did when corporate found out. They NOT the store manager have the final say in how the look of place is set. The manager made a mistake, hell maybe he is family friends with them and thought he could get away with something, I dont know and neither do you.

So to say she was "wrongfully terminated" is false, she was hired "under false pretenses" and inaccurate information. Happens all the time why is she special or different??

This is what I was trying to say yesterday. It is NOT a wrongful termination until they can prove that she did not receive a reasonable accommodation to be in line with Title VII of employment law. This is where we all differ. Some here think it's unreasonable for companies to expect employees to not wear religious garb while on company time. Others feel she should adhere to the dress code / look policy of her employer.

They hired her knowing she was a muslim, and I'm betting dollars to donuts that she is allowed to pray if necessary. I think that's a reasonable accommodation. Demanding to be able to wear a headscarf that makes you stand out like a sore thumb, at a company that sells based on image and clothing, IMO is unreasonable.

[gabosaurus]

Acually she was hired under "false pretenses". She should not have been hired in the first place without being told that she COULD NOT wear the hijab.


Exactly! When I was hired for both my summer job in high school and my current position, I was told exactly what I could and couldn't wear.

When I was in high school, there was a fried chicken place in Anaheim where all the employees had to wear ugly brown and yellow uniforms and a hat that looked like a chicken head. When kids were hired, part of their work agreement said something like "we don't care who you are, what faith your are or how important your family is. All employees must wear the company uniform during working hours."

[Gaffer]

Let's see. She's working for a retail outlet, now there's a real get rich quick career. She belongs to a religion that despises this sort of business. Special accommodations had been made concerning her dress which was in violation of the business dress code.

Something tells me CAIR or some other hezbo organization is behind this. It's not like she was making huge amounts of money here. But a large settlement would find it's way into the coffers of hezbo.

[fj1200]

Acually she was hired under "false pretenses". She should not have been hired in the first place without being told that she COULD NOT wear the hijab.

True.


They, NOT the store manager have the final say in how the look of a place is set. The manager made a mistake...

The store manager is the one who enforces company policy.


... she was hired "under false pretenses" and inaccurate information. Happens all the time why is she special or different??

Maybe so but then she was wrongfully terminated to no fault of her own.

[fj1200]

Exactly! When I was hired for both my summer job in high school and my current position, I was told exactly what I could and couldn't wear.
...
All employees must wear the company uniform during working hours."

And I'm sure you were told that upon being offered the position as well as seeing all of the other well dressed employees prior to even applying you knew what was expected. And they did the right thing by ensuring you knew that right off the bat.

[fj1200]

So how many days does it take before it's no longer a mistake and becomes policy. Please be specific...

One, as it relates to her. The manager screwed up.

[jimnyc]

One, as it relates to her. The manager screwed up.

Please show me law which states that once a manager screws up, they MUST now follow a different policy. A managers screwup cannot be held against the owners for an unlimited period. All she is due is a reasonable accommodation for her religion - no more and no less, and period.

[fj1200]

:rolleyes: Why then does it become fault of the employee when the manager screws up? He's the one that is supposed to be sure that employees know company policy.

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes: Why then does it become fault of the employee when the manager screws up? He's the one that is supposed to be sure that employees know company policy.

The MANAGER made a mistake, and he should be reprimanded or however the company sees fit for the mistake.

The employee then should be treated as they should have been, according to company policy, and no different than other employees or others that may be in the same situation as her. It was a bonus for her to have "special" treatment for awhile, then she was asked to come within compliance for their policy, which she should have been if there were no mistake to begin with.

[Nukeman]

:rolleyes: Why then does it become fault of the employee when the manager screws up? He's the one that is supposed to be sure that employees know company policy.

It became the employee's problem when UPPER management became aware of her "special" priviledge of not having to adhere to company dress code. Now the manager should be reprimanded for not following procedure and she should have been asked to conform or leave. I believe she choose the later!!! So whats the problem?????

[Gaffer]

It became the employee's problem when UPPER management became aware of her "special" priviledge of not having to adhere to company dress code. Now the manager should be reprimanded for not following procedure and she should have been asked to conform or leave. I believe she choose the later!!! So whats the problem?????

The problem is she's a muslim with the potential to extort money for islam and maybe move the courts a step closer to sharia law.

[fj1200]

The MANAGER made a mistake...

Yes he did.


It was a bonus for her to have "special" treatment for awhile, then she was asked to come within compliance for their policy, which she should have been if there were no mistake to begin with.

Yes, I'm sure she felt that it was bonus hajib time. So you acknowledge the mistake but don't feel that she is entitled to something for the mistakes of others?


It became the employee's problem when UPPER management became aware... So whats the problem?????

The problem is management error led to a problem for the employee for doing nothing wrong.

[Kathianne]

Yes he did.



Yes, I'm sure she felt that it was bonus hajib time. So you acknowledge the mistake but don't feel that she is entitled to something for the mistakes of others?



The problem is management error led to a problem for the employee for doing nothing wrong.

As I said earlier, if the local manager was reprimanded at the same time, I'll wait for the courts.

Question here though, why would a devout Muslim, assuming one is if wearing the hajib, want to work for A & F a chain that is constantly under attack for the ads they run? Oh, to make a point?

[jimnyc]

Yes he did.

Yes, I'm sure she felt that it was bonus hajib time. So you acknowledge the mistake but don't feel that she is entitled to something for the mistakes of others?

The problem is management error led to a problem for the employee for doing nothing wrong.

So if company policy doesn't allow earrings, but my particular store and manager allowed it for a certain amount of months - now they should have to allow me to do so indefinitely, or I am "entitled" to something for their mistake?

And no, the mangers error led to the employee being able to do something she normally wouldn't have been allowed to do. The store fixed the issue. You act as if she is being punished for doing something wrong - when she is not being punished, she is just now being asked to follow company policy, which she should have been following from the beginning.

What do you think would have happened had a manager in payroll screwed up and to no fault of her own she received more money for 4 months. Is she now allowed to continue at this rate indefinitely? No, the manager made a mistake and they will set her at where she should have since the beginning. In fact, in that case, she would be responsible for paying back all the extra money she made. In our case, they are just expecting her to start following company policy.

[jimnyc]

Yes, I'm sure she felt that it was bonus hajib time. So you acknowledge the mistake but don't feel that she is entitled to something for the mistakes of others?

Btw, what is it you feel she is entitled to for a manger making a mistake? I say nothing, since there is nothing in the world that makes the actions illegal, therefore what took place is 100% legal. Can you FINALLY cite precedent or law that states it is a violation or an employee is entitled to something, or a company can no longer follow its policy after a certain amount of time of a manger not following it with a particular employee?

Remember, precedence that a mistake should therefore entitle employee to continue in the manner that violates company policy. Why do you guys continue to ignore this question? How many days, specifically, does a manager need to screw the pooch with policy before the employee is entitled to continue indefinitely ignoring said policy. Case history or law would be sufficient.

[fj1200]

... or I am "entitled" to something for their mistake?

Yes, if she now has to find another job based on a situation not of her own making.


You act as if she is being punished for doing something wrong... which she should have been following from the beginning.

She is, she has suffered harm due to others actions.


What do you think would have happened had a manager in payroll screwed up and to no fault of her own she received more money for 4 months.

Was she promised that "extra" money prior to being hired like she was "promised" being able to wear her hijab?

[jimnyc]

Yes, if she now has to find another job based on a situation not of her own making.

You can be fired if you don't like the yankees. That's not of you're own making. What does employment law state you get for that?


She is, she has suffered harm due to others actions.

No, she was catered to outside of company policy due to anothers mistake.


Was she promised that "extra" money prior to being hired like she was "promised" being able to wear her hijab?

Prove she was "promised" to wear the hjijab indefinitely. A managers mistake does not equal a contract.

[jimnyc]

Like I said from the beginning, nothing is automatic or in black and white terms. It will come down to a courts interpretation of Vii and whether they made a reasonable accommodation for her, or attempted to. I'm following this with a few precedents of courts siding with companies over workers wearing the hijab. Admittedly, there is precedence on both sides of the aisle, which again is another reason why I say it is not "automatic" as some have stated here. While neither of these covers the issue of a manager making a mistake and allowing it for awhile before employee was asked to come into compliance with the policy. If anyone feels that makes a difference to precedence, they can surely post case law or law here showing that a managers mistake needs to be continually honored or employee receive some sort of compensation as a result. So far that request of mine has either been ignored or no one can defend it.


EEOC v. Regency Health Associates

In 2004, Hani Mohamed was hired by Regency Health Associates ("Regency"), a pediatric clinic, as a medical assistant. Prior to her hire, Ms. Mohamed regularly brought her children to the clinic but had never worn a hijab. At the time Ms. Mohamed started working, she acknowledged receipt of the strict dress code policy that did not address wearing headscarves. It was only after she started working at Regency that she started wearing a hijab to work. When her employer asked about her wearing a headscarf, Ms. Mohamed explained that she was required by her Islamic faith to wear the hijab. She also indicated that one day she wanted to wear a full headpiece, with only her eyes showing.

Regency explained to Ms. Mohamed that given the nature of the pediatric practice and reasonable desire of child patients and parents to see the face of the medical staff providers, they would be unable to approve wearing of the full headpiece. Furthermore, they notified Ms. Mohamed that they would consider what reasonable accommodations could be made to the dress code policy with respect to wearing a headscarf based on her religious beliefs. Prior to Regency's reasonable accommodation decision, Ms. Mohamed resigned her position.

In 2005, Ms. Mohamed filed a lawsuit against Regency alleging that Regency told her if she continued wearing the hijab she would no longer have a job with the company, and subsequently was discharged for adhering to her religious beliefs. Regency argued that Ms. Mohammed did not have a "bona fide religious belief" that required accommodation based on prior behavior and dressing patterns and that Ms. Mohamed did not give defendant sufficient time to consider her accommodation request before she resigned from her position nor provide enough information about her request for reasonable accommodation.

On August 1, 2007, the jury found in favor of the employer because they felt that the EEOC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, after informing defendant of her need for religious accommodation, Hani Mohamed was discharged because of her bona fide religious belief that she must wear a headscarf or hijab at work.

Webb v. City of Philadelphia

In 2003, Kimberlie Webb, a practicing Muslim and police officer since 1995, requested permission from her employer, the Philadelphia Police Department, to wear a khimar (form of hijab extending to the waist) along with her uniform. The police department denied her request as a violation of the police department's uniform regulation – Philadelphia Department Directive 78. Directive 78 specifically bars police officers in uniform from wearing religious dress or symbols under all circumstances and makes no medical or secular exceptions.

Ms. Webb then filed a complaint for religious discrimination with the EEOC. After she filed her complaint, Ms. Webb appeared to work wearing a khimar on three separate occasions and was sent home each time. As a result, the Commissioner, who himself was a Muslim, suspended her for 13 days. Ms. Webb then amended her charge in 2004, in which she added an allegation of retaliation. After receiving her right-to-sue letter, Ms. Webb filed her complaint in October 2005 against the City of Philadelphia.

The City admitted it did not offer the plaintiff a reasonable accommodation, arguing that it would suffer an undue hardship if it were required to accommodate her. In June 2007, U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III agreed with the City and decided against Ms. Webb. Judge Bartle ruled that the "City of Philadelphia has established compelling non-discriminatory reasons for Directive 78 and has demonstrated as a matter of law that it would suffer an undue hardship if required to accommodate the wearing of a khimar by the plaintiff while on duty as a police officer," and granted summary judgment to the City on the plaintiff's religious discrimination and retaliation claims. The court discussed that the Directive's standards were designed to maintain "religious neutrality" and promoted "the need for uniformity, but also enhance[d] cohesiveness, cooperation, and the esprit de corps of the police force."

[Nukeman]

Yes, if she now has to find another job based on a situation not of her own making.
Umm it is of HER OWN MAKING!!! She chose to wear the hijab!! No one FORCED her to go outside company policy!!! She chose to do it!!




She is, she has suffered harm due to others actions.
Once again no ohters actions caused this. She caused this by not wanting to adhere to a company dress code and policy. she was already given special treatment that was no longer going to be extended. She chose not to follow policy!!!



Was she promised that "extra" money prior to being hired like she was "promised" being able to wear her hijab Regardless of what a store manager said the COMPANY policy takes predence over what was stated. If I am hired and promised the stars and the moon if it ISN'T IN WRITING it was never made, however the "dress code" is in writing and once again takes precedence!!!!

[fj1200]

These two posts don't even really support your position. But I can bold and increase font on wording as well.


Just realized this was directed solely at my comments about a handbook not rising to the level of an implied contract. I thought it was general in nature. Nonetheless, I will be happy to provide citations for whatever you ask.

As for not giving the employee a contract, as I stated (as well as a company covering its ass, and how the wording can keep it from becoming a contract - directly from a law firms website:


3. An implied contract may alter the employee’s at will status.

In the absence of any indication to the contrary, an employee is assumed to be hired on an at will basis. However, Massachusetts courts recognize that even in the absence of an express contract for other than at will employment, there may be an implied contract. Often, employees assert the existence of an implied contract based on the terms of an employee handbook. Under appropriate circumstances, such a handbook can be a binding implied contract, modifying the terms of employment.

However, to establish that the handbook is an implied contract, the employee must show that, “considering the context of the manual’s preparation and distribution as well as its specific provisions, an employee would be objectively reasonable in regarding the manual as a legally enforceable commitment concerning the terms and conditions of employment.” While a number of factors are relevant to this determination, a handbook is unlikely to form the basis of an implied contract if the employer reserves the right to unilaterally modify the terms of the manual.

An employer should definitely consult an attorney when drafting its employee handbook.

http://www.barronstad.com/resources/employment_law/at_will_employment

I trust such a major company as Hollister aka A&F would be smart enough to use their legal team when drafting handbooks.

So again, it will come down to a courts decision as to whether or not they violated Title Vii

A&F should be smart enough to ensure that their own managers now what the rules are regarding employment.

[fj1200]

A good read from a California attorney, where this particular A&F is located:


Employment-related claims are the fastest growing area of litigation in California. Defending claims such as sexual harassment, disability and pregnancy discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy and breach of implied contract have become more commonplace for companies, regardless of their size.

Although a well-crafted employee handbook that is closely adhered to by supervisors and managers cannot prevent an employee or former employee from bringing an employment-related lawsuit against an employer, it can go a long way toward avoiding or minimizing employer liability.

Employee handbooks and written employment policies are not required under California law. However, in addition to potentially minimizing liability, employee handbooks -- if drafted and implemented effectively -- can serve as a helpful management tool.

An effective employee manual reserves rights on behalf of the employer that it might not otherwise have in dealing with employees, such as workplace inspections, drug testing and making changes to benefits.

It also provides notice to employees of the company's expectations, along with the consequences if its standards are not met, and promotes uniformity and consistency with respect to the implementation of the employer's policies, reducing the possibility of inconsistent treatment of similarly situated employees. In addition, the manual can be used to provide a ready reference guide for employees regarding company rules, procedures, and policies.

Moreover, one of the most important functions of an employee handbook is to confirm the "at-will" nature of the employment relationship, meaning both the employer or employee can terminate the relationship at any time without notice or reason. To prevent claims of an implied contract for termination for good cause only based on alleged assurances by supervisors and managers or other circumstances, employers should require employees to sign an acknowledgment regarding their receipt of the handbook and their understanding of the at-will nature of employment.

http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20060810cra

Just about each of those bolded items are missing from the facts as laid out which means the lawyers could have done the best job they are capable of but they failed at being sure their managers implemented policies properly.

[jimnyc]

These two posts don't even really support your position. But I can bold and increase font on wording as well.



A&F should be smart enough to ensure that their own managers now what the rules are regarding employment.

A handbook VERY rarely rises to the level of a contract, or implied contract. I gave links to attorneys offices that even explain what I said.

If A&F wasn't smart enough to ensure their manager at this store fully understood the company policy, that does NOT mean they can never follow the policy with this employee. I've asked for case law MANY times now in this thread and you continually ignore that request. We all know it's because it doesn't exist. Why not just answer the question instead of playing dumb and acting like you don't see my multiple requests?

[jimnyc]

Just about each of those bolded items are missing from the facts as laid out which means the lawyers could have done the best job they are capable of but they failed at being sure their managers implemented policies properly.

Could have, but you stated it was an automatic case and assumed the company failed at all parts, they had an implied contract & that it was a wrongful termination. That's hardly automatic and to think otherwise is rather amateurish regarding employment law.

[jimnyc]

Just about each of those bolded items are missing from the facts as laid out which means the lawyers could have done the best job they are capable of but they failed at being sure their managers implemented policies properly.

I'll ask for the LAST time. Can you PLEASE supply case law showing that if a manager should happen to improperly follow company procedure - that they now must indefinitely allow as much for the affected employee, or are in violation of some code and now owe compensation or such to said employee, and that they also have no recourse in having said employee revert to appropriate company policy.

[fj1200]

Receipt of continuance of debate. Off to get the kids.

[Abbey Marie]

Normally I'd agree with you, her being in the 'stockroom' and all. However having worked in retail outlets I know that the stockroom people prepare the clothing for the floor, then bring it out to the floor, often assembling the displays. During these times, which are not short, they are expected to interact with customers if approached. I worked at Limited in high school and college, they also had 'a look.' Everyone, including the stock people had to wear Limited clothing. The 'boys' were expected to wear what would now be A & F type of clothing, though at the time Eddie Bauer or Mark Shale.

Yuppers. Our daughter was hired by Hollister (related to A&F) based on her looks, and then was given the choice to work on the sales floor or the stock room. Obviously, the requirements were the same for either one.

[fj1200]

A handbook VERY rarely rises to the level of a contract, or implied contract. I gave links to attorneys offices that even explain what I said.

So you are in agreement with me that the handbook can be the basis for an implied contract. And thank you for pointing out the website of an attorney that holds the same opinion as me.


... and how the wording can keep it from becoming a contract - directly from a law firms website:


Under appropriate circumstances, such a handbook can be a binding implied contract, modifying the terms of employment.

http://www.barronstad.com/resources/employment_law/at_will_employment

I trust such a major company as Hollister aka A&F would be smart enough to use their legal team when drafting handbooks.

Apparently they should NOT have trusted retail management with being able to carry out their well crafted policies.


If A&F wasn't smart enough to ensure their manager at this store fully understood the company policy, that does NOT mean they can never follow the policy with this employee. I've asked for case law MANY times now in this thread and you continually ignore that request. We all know it's because it doesn't exist. Why not just answer the question instead of playing dumb and acting like you don't see my multiple requests?

You keep asking for case law to back up my point but you have not done a very good job at backing up your own points.

[fj1200]

I'll ask for the LAST time. Can you PLEASE supply case law showing that if a manager should happen to improperly follow company procedure - that they now must indefinitely allow as much for the affected employee, or are in violation of some code and now owe compensation or such to said employee, and that they also have no recourse in having said employee revert to appropriate company policy.

Is that the same question you keep asking or does it change a bit each time? Nevertheless, that is not my argument so I am not particularly interested in case law on that point.

My point has been that she was wrongfully terminated. I don't know how there can be any doubt on that point, she was hired wearing the hijab and she worked for "some months" wearing the hijab and then after doing nothing wrong she was told that she would either have to comply or be fired. The fact that she wouldn't/couldn't remove it based on her religious reasoning is beside the point, she was wrongfully terminated... IMO.

I don't think A&F should have to change their policy, I think that they should have the right to require a certain look, I hope that she loses her complaint based on religious discrimination. Having said all of that I think that she was wrongfully terminated and is entitled to compensation based on that. I think that if she wasn't making the religious discrimination the issue that the whole thing would have settled long ago.

[fj1200]

Jim, I answered incorrectly here, I flaked on the "becomes policy" part.


So how many days does it take before it's no longer a mistake and becomes policy. Please be specific...


One, as it relates to her. The manager screwed up.

I don't think it should become company policy. I still think she has a wrongful termination suit however.

Sorry for leading us down this rat hole.

[jimnyc]

So you are in agreement with me that the handbook can be the basis for an implied contract. And thank you for pointing out the website of an attorney that holds the same opinion as me.



Apparently they should NOT have trusted retail management with being able to carry out their well crafted policies.



You keep asking for case law to back up my point but you have not done a very good job at backing up your own points.


Is that the same question you keep asking or does it change a bit each time? Nevertheless, that is not my argument so I am not particularly interested in case law on that point.

My point has been that she was wrongfully terminated. I don't know how there can be any doubt on that point, she was hired wearing the hijab and she worked for "some months" wearing the hijab and then after doing nothing wrong she was told that she would either have to comply or be fired. The fact that she wouldn't/couldn't remove it based on her religious reasoning is beside the point, she was wrongfully terminated... IMO.

I don't think A&F should have to change their policy, I think that they should have the right to require a certain look, I hope that she loses her complaint based on religious discrimination. Having said all of that I think that she was wrongfully terminated and is entitled to compensation based on that. I think that if she wasn't making the religious discrimination the issue that the whole thing would have settled long ago.


Jim, I answered incorrectly here, I flaked on the "becomes policy" part.





I don't think it should become company policy. I still think she has a wrongful termination suit however.

Sorry for leading us down this rat hole.

Your argument for multiple pages was that the manager made a mistake and that the employee should not suffer as a result of this mistake. My argument was that the manager made a mistake and the company decided to rectify that mistake. You still argued that the employee should not suffer and that the manager should have known policy. Therefore, it is up to YOU to show that they cannot go back on policy and expect the employee to adhere to the policy as if she should have from day one.

Oh, what's that, you admit policy shouldn't change? I thought so.

And you can't say "wrongful termination" for no reason. A wrongful termination ONLY exists when a law has been broken or Title VII from 1964 has been violated. You yourself just admitted that the company can adopt a look policy and that the religious argument doesn't matter.

So, if it's not Title VII and no laws were broken - there is no wrongful termination.

And while I will add an employment law version link of wrongful termination here - I want to further respond to your crap about how I haven't backed up my comments. I KNOW employment law, so I take it for granted when I type that others do to. I clearly stated I would be happy to answer any/all questions. So rather than whine AFTER the fact that I haven't backed up what I stated - how about showing where I ignored questions you asked of me, like you did? Or that was until you changed your argument.


Wrongful Termination:

n. a right of an employee to sue his/her employer for damages (loss of wage and "fringe" benefits, and, if against "public policy," for punitive damages). To bring such a suit the discharge of the employee must have been without "cause," and the employee a) had an express contract of continued employment or there was an "implied" contract based on the circumstances of his/her hiring or legitimate reasons to believe the employment would be permanent, b) there is a violation of statutory prohibitions against discrimination due to race, gender, sexual preference or age, or c) the discharge was contrary to "public policy" such as in retribution for exposing dishonest acts of the employer. An employee who believes he/she has been wrongfully terminated may bring an action (file a suit) for damages for discharge, as well as for breach of contract, but the court decisions have become increasingly strict in limiting an employee's grounds for suit.


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2269

I will repeat what you said - the managers mistake does not mean it should become company policy. Therefore, I state that the company policy exists as it did the day she was hired. The point about an implied contract is moot if company look policy IS in effect. And even if you stubbornly believe there IS an implied contract, SHE is contracted to the look policy - even if an error was made in the beginning.

So either show a law was broken, or how Title 7 was violated, or there is no WT under the law. Title 7 can only be violated if they screwed with her religious rights, which you stated was besides the point. So how do YOU come up with the WT?

[jimnyc]

They shouldn't have changed their policy midstream and just not hired her. That has its own problems it seems:

The big question is can they defend their policy.

A&F has some problems and did some things wrong but I think the pendulum has swung too far away from the rights of a private enterprise to conduct its business how it feels. But:

They're toast.

She's dead wrong about this:


This case isn't about freedom of religion, it's really about mandating the behavior of private enterprise.


A&F's problem is that it was OK for "some months" and then it wasn't. They didn't abide by their own policy which is an automatic guilty.


I hope you're referring to case law because it's unlikely to be codified.

She worked for "some months" under the implied contract of wearing her hijab and then she was informed that she could no longer wear it. So who would be at fault, her for working for doing the same thing every day for "some months" or the company whose very job it is to know their own policy?

Company policy is codified in the handbook and the handbook is part of the employment contract. BTW did you read the entire article? A&F has a history of getting their ass handed to them in court cases and settlements.


Thank you, it's called precedent.

This isn't a Title VII case, it's about wrongful termination. She didn't change her behavior, accepted for "some months," and was then terminated. Religious discrimination is for the media.

Oh yes it will, they can't terminate without cause and/or in a discriminatory manner.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in that last sentence but it is up to management to ensure that all are following company policy.

The handbook IS written.

http://humanresources.about.com/od/handbookspolicies/Handbooks_and_Policy_Manuals_Samples.htm

http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/managing-your-business/employee-handbook.html


Employees of private companies have no right to freedom of speech, which is why they can implement a dress code. This really hinges on the policy. Did the policy change or just the application of it? In this case it appears the dress code didn't change, only its application; but why? If they had a policy which stated no hats or headwear- then it surely was noted in the employee manual. If she was allowed to wear one during and after her probationary period, she was granted a de facto waiver, and an at-will termination for that reason is wrongful.


:rolleyes: Why then does it become fault of the employee when the manager screws up? He's the one that is supposed to be sure that employees know company policy.


Yes he did.

Yes, I'm sure she felt that it was bonus hajib time. So you acknowledge the mistake but don't feel that she is entitled to something for the mistakes of others?

The problem is management error led to a problem for the employee for doing nothing wrong.


Yes, if she now has to find another job based on a situation not of her own making.

She is, she has suffered harm due to others actions.

Was she promised that "extra" money prior to being hired like she was "promised" being able to wear her hijab?


Just about each of those bolded items are missing from the facts as laid out which means the lawyers could have done the best job they are capable of but they failed at being sure their managers implemented policies properly.


Is that the same question you keep asking or does it change a bit each time? Nevertheless, that is not my argument so I am not particularly interested in case law on that point.

My point has been that she was wrongfully terminated. I don't know how there can be any doubt on that point, she was hired wearing the hijab and she worked for "some months" wearing the hijab and then after doing nothing wrong she was told that she would either have to comply or be fired. The fact that she wouldn't/couldn't remove it based on her religious reasoning is beside the point, she was wrongfully terminated... IMO.

I don't think A&F should have to change their policy, I think that they should have the right to require a certain look, I hope that she loses her complaint based on religious discrimination. Having said all of that I think that she was wrongfully terminated and is entitled to compensation based on that. I think that if she wasn't making the religious discrimination the issue that the whole thing would have settled long ago.


Jim, I answered incorrectly here, I flaked on the "becomes policy" part.

I don't think it should become company policy. I still think she has a wrongful termination suit however.

Sorry for leading us down this rat hole.

You will see CLEARLY that up until last night, your ENTIRE argument went around the fact that she was able to wear the hijab for 4 months due to a manager mistake. You even stated they should have just not hired her. You assumed she was automatically guilty simply because they didn't follow their own policy. You further stated that the policy didn't change. If it didn't change, then your argument that she had an "implied contract" would be a contract with the handbook as of the day she was hired - which apparently has a look policy - which they then asked her to adhere to.

She refused. She was fired. Now you claim it was wrongful termination. You even go as far as to claim you hope she loses her complaint about religious discrimination. I'm sorry, but it appears to me that your argument has changed a little since I requested case law.

Nonetheless, let's ignore that. Without religious discrimination - WHAT LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN?

You state yourself there is no religious discrimination, so Title VII is out. You said their mistake does not make company policy, so the original handbook terms are in effect (if you assume it is a contract). You did not supply case law because you basically admitted that no implied contract outside of what the handbook originally states even exists. So therefore the handbook is out. I'm VERY curious as to how you would create a WT case with these facts.

[fj1200]

Your argument for multiple pages was that the manager made a mistake and that the employee should not suffer as a result of this mistake. My argument was that the manager made a mistake and the company decided to rectify that mistake. You still argued that the employee should not suffer and that the manager should have known policy. Therefore, it is up to YOU to show that they cannot go back on policy and expect the employee to adhere to the policy as if she should have from day one.

Yup, my argument is that the manager made a mistake and the employee shouldn't suffer. Your argument is that the manager's mistake is somehow now the fault of the employee. Right?

Did the manager make a mistake? Should the employee be harmed for a mistake that was not her's? Who is supposed to know store/company policy? Did she get permission?

I only have to show an implied contract:

Hani Khan said a manager at the company's Hollister Co. store at the Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo hired her while she was wearing her hijab. The manager said it was OK to wear it as long as it was in company colors, Khan said.
And that the company breached contract:

In some successful cases, the courts have created exceptions to the employment-at-will practice. Thus far, these exceptions have fallen into three broad categories: (1) breach of contract by the employer, (2) breach of an implied COVENANT of GOOD FAITH and fair dealing, and (3) violation of public policy by the employer. Employers and legislatures have responded in a variety of ways.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/6437/Employment-at-Will.html

"Company colors" to boot, sounds like a "look."


Oh, what's that, you admit policy shouldn't change? I thought so.

Yup, I admitted to making that mistake in responding.


And you can't say "wrongful termination" for no reason. A wrongful termination ONLY exists when a law has been broken or Title VII from 1964 has been violated. You yourself just admitted that the company can adopt a look policy and that the religious argument doesn't matter.

Wrong, wrongful termination exists for reasons outside of breaking a law or Title VII; see above.


So, if it's not Title VII and no laws were broken - there is no wrongful termination.

False. Breach of contract.


And while I will add an employment law version link of wrongful termination here - I want to further respond to your crap about how I haven't backed up my comments. I KNOW employment law, so I take it for granted when I type that others do to. I clearly stated I would be happy to answer any/all questions. So rather than whine AFTER the fact that I haven't backed up what I stated - how about showing where I ignored questions you asked of me, like you did? Or that was until you changed your argument.


To bring such a suit the discharge of the employee must have been without "cause," and the employee a) had an express contract of continued employment or there was an "implied" contract based on the circumstances of his/her hiring or legitimate reasons to believe the employment would be permanent,

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2269

Yup, implied contract.


I will repeat what you said - the managers mistake does not mean it should become company policy. Therefore, I state that the company policy exists as it did the day she was hired. The point about an implied contract is moot if company look policy IS in effect. And even if you stubbornly believe there IS an implied contract, SHE is contracted to the look policy - even if an error was made in the beginning.

Thank you, the manager made a mistake. You can't dismiss implied contract like that, everything points to her asking and receiving permission. She followed the "look" as it was given to her.


So either show a law was broken, or how Title 7 was violated, or there is no WT under the law. Title 7 can only be violated if they screwed with her religious rights, which you stated was besides the point. So how do YOU come up with the WT?

Breach of contract.

[fj1200]

You will see CLEARLY that up until last night, your ENTIRE argument went around the fact that she was able to wear the hijab for 4 months due to a manager mistake. You even stated they should have just not hired her. You assumed she was automatically guilty simply because they didn't follow their own policy. You further stated that the policy didn't change. If it didn't change, then your argument that she had an "implied contract" would be a contract with the handbook as of the day she was hired - which apparently has a look policy - which they then asked her to adhere to.

She refused. She was fired. Now you claim it was wrongful termination. You even go as far as to claim you hope she loses her complaint about religious discrimination. I'm sorry, but it appears to me that your argument has changed a little since I requested case law.

My argument didn't change, she was wrongfully terminated... IMO :rolleyes: but that A&F should have control over their policies. I alluded to the latter early on but we've been arguing about the former which is a different issue and apparently not one that will be decided by the courts.


Nonetheless, let's ignore that. Without religious discrimination - WHAT LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN?

Breach of contract. That's a civil matter, not criminal.


You state yourself there is no religious discrimination, so Title VII is out. You said their mistake does not make company policy, so the original handbook terms are in effect (if you assume it is a contract). You did not supply case law because you basically admitted that no implied contract outside of what the handbook originally states even exists. So therefore the handbook is out. I'm VERY curious as to how you would create a WT case with these facts.

That's up to the courts to decide, I stated I hope she doesn't win on Title VII. I admit no such thing and have shown above breach of contract and that one can sue on that basis.

[jimnyc]

So which is it, that an implied contract can rise out of the handbook - or that the implied contract came verbally? Can you provide case law showing a court deciding a contract existed from what a manager stated in an otherwise "at will" state? Because you argued earlier in this thread that a contract could exist from what was written in the handbook, and argued it quite a bit, but now it appears you're ignoring that argument and going strictly on what was verbally stated.

And if you believe your case has more merit than religious discrimination - why are her attorneys and the EEOC thinking differently and going after this based on Title VII and claiming her religious rights were discriminated against?

[jimnyc]

I'd love to see if employees at A&F had to sign the receipt of their handbook, which every place I ever worked that had one did as a matter of policy:


In Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd., the employee asserted that his employment was not terminable at will, but rather was a contract of employment terminable for cause only based upon the terms of the employee handbook.

The handbook and a "confirmation of employment" in Wing, however, included the following disclaimer:

I . . . understand and agree that my employment is terminable at will, so that both the Company and I remain free to choose to end our work relationship at any time[,] subject to any contractual agreement the Company and I have entered into. I further understand and agree that nothing in this Policy Booklet in any way, creates an express or implied contract of employment between the Company and me."

The Wing court held that this disclaimer "bars the finding of a contract of employment other than an at will relationship" and announced the rule that, "[a]bsent fraud in the inducement, a disclaimer in an employee handbook stating that employment is at will precludes an employment contract other than at will based upon the terms of the employee handbook.

So if they have a handbook, and it states her employment is "at will" and she signed for receipt of it - she is likely bound to it and it would negate any "implied contract".


This presumption of at-will employment may be superseded by an express or implied contract limiting the employer's right to discharge employee. The landmark California Supreme Court case on the issue of existence of implied employment contract is Foley v. Interactive Data Corporation (1988). In that case, the Court stated the general principle that courts seek to enforce the actual understanding of the parties to a contract, and in so doing may inquire into the parties' conduct to determine if it demonstrates an implied contract. The Court further noted that in the employment context, several factors may be considered to determine whether implied employment contract existed, including (1) personal policies or practices of the employer; (2) the employee's longevity of service; (3) actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment; and (4) the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.

The Foley court, considering the above factors, came to the conclusion that there was an implied contract to not terminate employment where the employee, who worked for his employer for over 6 years, received excellent performance evaluations and promotions, was told that if he was going to do a good job, his future was secure, and where the employer admitted that it did not normally fire employee without cause.

These factors, however, don't have much weight if the employee actually signed a written form, stating that he understands that he is an at will employee and may be terminated at any time with or without cause.

From above:

1- Personal policies of the employer go against the woman in this case
2- The employee was there for less than 6 months, and was asked many times to remove her hijab. Term of employment was quite minimal.
3- Employer gave employee ZERO "assurances: of continued employment, that I am aware of.

And lastly, once again, the handbook that I'm confident she signed, which would likely override any "implied contract". While it doesn't say so in a small article, most major companies and chains require employees to sign for receipt of their handbooks.

http://www.sanfranciscoemploymentlawfirm.com/2008/10/california_employment_law_atwi.html

[fj1200]

So which is it, that an implied contract can rise out of the handbook - or that the implied contract came verbally? Can you provide case law showing a court deciding a contract existed from what a manager stated in an otherwise "at will" state?

I haven't seen the handbook but I have seen the evidence of implied contract. Courts that allow the implied contract exception also recognize oral representations.


A hiring official’s oral representations to employees, such as saying that employment will continue as long as the employee’s performance is adequate, also may create an implied contract that would prevent termination except for cause.
The leading case having to do with the implied-contract
exception is Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan,
decided by the Supreme Court of that State in 1980. ... When he was hired, he asked his hiring official about his job security and was told that his employment would continue “as long as [he] did [his] job.”
...
If an employer’s actions lead an employee to believe that the policies and guidelines of the employer are “established and official at any given time, purport to be fair, and are applied consistently and uniformly
to each employee,” then the employer has created an obligation. That obligation is created even though the parties may not have mutually agreed that contract rights would be established by the policies.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf


Because you argued earlier in this thread that a contract could exist from what was written in the handbook, and argued it quite a bit, but now it appears you're ignoring that argument and going strictly on what was verbally stated.

I'm not ignoring the argument, it's clearly been shown that the handbook can rise to the level of an implied contract even with an at-will declaration.


In Pine River State Bank v. Mettilee... The employee’s
labor was the consideration in support of the contract. Thus,
argued the court, the employer breached the employment contract
by terminating the employee without following the specific
procedures outlined in the handbook that created the
implied contract.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf


And if you believe your case has more merit than religious discrimination - why are her attorneys and the EEOC thinking differently and going after this based on Title VII and claiming her religious rights were discriminated against?

We've been over this point.

The lawsuit requests back pay and punitive damages, but her attorney says her top priority is for Abercrombie & Fitch to change its “look policy” to allow for religiously mandated attire.
It also helps to point out why she may have been singled out.

You didn't answer my questions:

Your argument is that the manager's mistake is somehow now the fault of the employee. Right?

Did the manager make a mistake? Should the employee be harmed for a mistake that was not her's? Who is supposed to know store/company policy? Did she get permission?

[jimnyc]

I haven't seen the handbook but I have seen the evidence of implied contract. Courts that allow the implied contract exception also recognize oral representations.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

I'm not ignoring the argument, it's clearly been shown that the handbook can rise to the level of an implied contract even with an at-will declaration.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

And not one of those examples fits this case. I've seen NO evidence that there was a set time period of employment guaranteed. Look at the reasons the Cali supreme court stated would be needed to be met to make an implied contract:


The Court further noted that in the employment context, several factors may be considered to determine whether implied employment contract existed, including (1) personal policies or practices of the employer; (2) the employee's longevity of service; (3) actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment; and (4) the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.

I already stated it is POSSIBLE, but none of the first 3 factors in this case come close. Why you chose to ignore these requirements is beyond me.


You didn't answer my questions:

Your argument is that the manager's mistake is somehow now the fault of the employee. Right?

Nope, never stated anything even remotely close to that. I stated that the manager made a mistake, and the company has the right to fix this mistake, and they need not follow a "new policy" indefinitely because of the employees mistake.


Did the manager make a mistake?

Yes


Should the employee be harmed for a mistake that was not her's?

Harmed? No. But being asked to follow company policy that 1000's others follow would not even come close to "harm"


Who is supposed to know store/company policy?

All employees, especially those given a handbook that states policy, and also meets the legal requirement to make the employee/employer relationship an at will relationship, voiding any remote barely even possible implied contract.


Did she get permission?

From the facts I see so far, and according to HER words, it would appear so. Does she have a contract with terms and a meeting of the minds, that this will be an indefinite "contract"?

[jimnyc]

BTW - in response to this:


he lawsuit requests back pay and punitive damages, but her attorney says her top priority is for Abercrombie & Fitch to change its “look policy” to allow for religiously mandated attire.

Find me a legit article from MSM that DOESN'T state she is suing based on discrimination. Regardless of what they want to state to make it look warm and fuzzy, they are suing based on discrimination and it'll be that that needs to be proven.

[fj1200]

I'd love to see if employees at A&F had to sign the receipt of their handbook, which every place I ever worked that had one did as a matter of policy:

That would be interesting but it wouldn't necessarily matter if they didn't follow the policies as laid out or other oral representations could have been relied on.


So if they have a handbook, and it states her employment is "at will" and she signed for receipt of it - she is likely bound to it and it would negate any "implied contract".

Wrong; Pine River State Bank v. Mettilee.


From above:

1- Personal policies of the employer go against the woman in this case

Not as she knew them to be and were accepted by her employer.


2- The employee was there for less than 6 months, and was asked many times to remove her hijab. Term of employment was quite minimal.

So? She wore her hijab repeatedly, was hired wearing her hijab, and was told she could wear her hijab as long as it was in "company colors."


3- Employer gave employee ZERO "assurances: of continued employment, that I am aware of.

Not for not refusing to wear her hijab?


And lastly, once again, the handbook that I'm confident she signed, which would likely override any "implied contract". While it doesn't say so in a small article, most major companies and chains require employees to sign for receipt of their handbooks.

http://www.sanfranciscoemploymentlawfirm.com/2008/10/california_employment_law_atwi.html

California recognizes all three exceptions to at-will employment.

[fj1200]

BTW - in response to this:

Find me a legit article from MSM that DOESN'T state she is suing based on discrimination. Regardless of what they want to state to make it look warm and fuzzy, they are suing based on discrimination and it'll be that that needs to be proven.

Meh.

[jimnyc]

That would be interesting but it wouldn't necessarily matter if they didn't follow the policies as laid out or other oral representations could have been relied on.

See California supreme court ruling - at will applies unless the conditions I posted are met to make an implied contract.


Wrong; Pine River State Bank v. Mettilee.

Then I suggest you start reading here to see how the case you are citing is SO very much different than this case, and furthermore, this case doesn't even remotely have the same qualifications as that case had... Re: the employee handbook and how it was written.


Not as she knew them to be and were accepted by her employer.

Her employer is A&F, NOT the manager. She doesn't get to go against policy forever due to a mistake. EVEN YOU stated it didn't change company policy. She doesn't get to go against written policy forever based on a mistake. She gets to follow the policy that every other employee of the company have to.


So? She wore her hijab repeatedly, was hired wearing her hijab, and was told she could wear her hijab as long as it was in "company colors."


See above reply AND - If you read what I wrote previously you would see how the term applied. The courts saw it as more of a contract in the case because the persons employment being 6 years, not 4 months. You can just brush aside these requirements made by the supreme court, but I assure you that the judges in Ca. will not.



Not for not refusing to wear her hijab?

I'm speaking in terms of continued employment assurances and or guarantees. She never received either.


California recognizes all three exceptions to at-will employment.

And you seem to think it's "automatic" as you stated in the beginning of this thread. THEY are suing based on discrimination, YOU think they have a case based on an implied contract. So automatic that they decided they will go to court and try to prove religious discrimination, not breach of contract.

[jimnyc]

Meh.

Too hard to apply facts to the thread, or proof that what I am stating is 100% correct? Their suit is being filed as religious discrimination based on the discrimination act of 1964 Title VII.

[fj1200]

And not one of those examples fits this case. I've seen NO evidence that there was a set time period of employment guaranteed. Look at the reasons the Cali supreme court stated would be needed to be met to make an implied contract:

Look at the three exceptions to at-will.


I already stated it is POSSIBLE, but none of the first 3 factors in this case come close. Why you chose to ignore these requirements is beyond me.

I haven't ignored them.


Nope, never stated anything even remotely close to that. I stated that the manager made a mistake, and the company has the right to fix this mistake, and they need not follow a "new policy" indefinitely because of the employees mistake.

That seems to be the upshot given that she's the one who no longer has a job.


Yes

Excellent.


Harmed? No. But being asked to follow company policy that 1000's others follow would not even come close to "harm"

She was fired, that is being harmed.


All employees, especially those given a handbook that states policy, and also meets the legal requirement to make the employee/employer relationship an at will relationship, voiding any remote barely even possible implied contract.

Great, now you're ignoring the case law that you asked for. BTW, where does she learn of these policies and get clarification of the policies which include her wearing the hijab?


From the facts I see so far, and according to HER words, it would appear so. Does she have a contract with terms and a meeting of the minds, that this will be an indefinite "contract"?

"Meeting of the minds"? She was offered employment wearing her hijab; she worked wearing her hijab; she was paid for her labor wearing her hijab; Offer and acceptance.

HER words and COMPANY actions.

[fj1200]

Too hard to apply facts to the thread, or proof that what I am stating is 100% correct? Their suit is being filed as religious discrimination based on the discrimination act of 1964 Title VII.

Why you're stating things that I don't dispute I have no idea. I am, however, starting to lean towards religious discrimination.

Besides, the facts go my way... IMO...

[jimnyc]

Look at the three exceptions to at-will.



I haven't ignored them.



That seems to be the upshot given that she's the one who no longer has a job.



Excellent.



She was fired, that is being harmed.



Great, now you're ignoring the case law that you asked for. BTW, where does she learn of these policies and get clarification of the policies which include her wearing the hijab?



"Meeting of the minds"? She was offered employment wearing her hijab; she worked wearing her hijab; she was paid for her labor wearing her hijab; Offer and acceptance.

HER words and COMPANY actions.

I'm not going to continue on debating sentences. It's retarded to write this way and then things are completely fucked up when I go to respond and I need to go back posts in order to bring back prior quotes. Playing this "expand a post" is perhaps the worst debating tactic ever. Either you can reply like you're not illiterate and perhaps write a paragraph or two, or count me out. If it was done once, that's ok, but I'm not going to continually respond to posts that make me constantly refer to prior posts.

If you want to continue to debate by writing legible paragraphs, I'm game, but I'm not playing this sentence by sentence game of yours.

[jimnyc]

Why you're stating things that I don't dispute I have no idea. I am, however, starting to lean towards religious discrimination.

Besides, the facts go my way... IMO...

Because you've been debating "breach of contract" this entire time, claiming she had an "implied contract". That is ENTIRELY different than religious discrimination.

[fj1200]

See California supreme court ruling - at will applies unless the conditions I posted are met to make an implied contract.

Saw it, interesting.


Then I suggest you start reading here to see how the case you are citing is SO very much different than this case, and furthermore, this case doesn't even remotely have the same qualifications as that case had... Re: the employee handbook and how it was written.

Of course they're different, if they were the same then this would already be settled wouldn't it? :rolleyes:


Her employer is A&F, NOT the manager. She doesn't get to go against policy forever due to a mistake. EVEN YOU stated it didn't change company policy. She doesn't get to go against written policy forever based on a mistake. She gets to follow the policy that every other employee of the company have to.

Who enforces and interprets the policy?


See above reply AND - If you read what I wrote previously you would see how the term applied. The courts saw it as more of a contract in the case because the persons employment being 6 years, not 4 months. You can just brush aside these requirements made by the supreme court, but I assure you that the judges in Ca. will not.

They will certainly interpret those requirements according to their judgement.


I'm speaking in terms of continued employment assurances and or guarantees. She never received either.

Based on her hijab?


And you seem to think it's "automatic" as you stated in the beginning of this thread. THEY are suing based on discrimination, YOU think they have a case based on an implied contract. So automatic that they decided they will go to court and try to prove religious discrimination, not breach of contract.

Do you like to kick dead horses too? Look at their number one priority. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

I'm not going to continue on debating sentences. It's retarded to write this way and then things are completely fucked up when I go to respond and I need to go back posts in order to bring back prior quotes. Playing this "expand a post" is perhaps the worst debating tactic ever. Either you can reply like you're not illiterate and perhaps write a paragraph or two, or count me out. If it was done once, that's ok, but I'm not going to continually respond to posts that make me constantly refer to prior posts.

If you want to continue to debate by writing legible paragraphs, I'm game, but I'm not playing this sentence by sentence game of yours.

Me too dude.

[fj1200]

Because you've been debating "breach of contract" this entire time, claiming she had an "implied contract". That is ENTIRELY different than religious discrimination.

Yes I have and I believe she did. And yes it is different.

[jimnyc]

Me too dude.

Of course it would be much easier if you could respond to my legible paragraphs with opinions with your own in reply, instead of stretching things out for pages and pages of sentences, but that's just me.

With that said, I don't see either of us changing the others mind. No point rehashing the same points over and over. You have your interpretation and I have mine - which is why you see lots of hung juries in the court system, and why I think we have perhaps the fairest judicial system out there.

[sybarite]

The idiot manager that hired her should be fired. The minute she walked in with a hijab he should have realized she would not follow a dress code. Now the company has to pay for his bad decision.

[fj1200]

Of course it would be much easier if you could respond to my legible paragraphs with opinions with your own in reply, instead of stretching things out for pages and pages of sentences, but that's just me.

With that said, I don't see either of us changing the others mind. No point rehashing the same points over and over. You have your interpretation and I have mine - which is why you see lots of hung juries in the court system, and why I think we have perhaps the fairest judicial system out there.

When legible paragraphs are called for I respond with them, when multiple claims are made that should be addressed individually I respond as necessary.

[jimnyc]

When legible paragraphs are called for I respond with them, when multiple claims are made that should be addressed individually I respond as necessary.

Most of us here are intelligent enough to handle all of your words in one paragraph. We don't need you to dumb it down for us and address everything in neat little sentences. Can you imagine if court briefs and/or litigation was handled in such a matter? Sorry, but there's really no reason to expand in such a manner. But hey, like you said once before, you post your way and I'll post mine.

Or am I incorrect and you break it apart and dumb it down for your own benefit?

[fj1200]

Most of us here are intelligent enough to handle all of your words in one paragraph. We don't need you to dumb it down for us and address everything in neat little sentences. Can you imagine if court briefs and/or litigation was handled in such a matter? Sorry, but there's really no reason to expand in such a manner. But hey, like you said once before, you post your way and I'll post mine.

Or am I incorrect and you break it apart and dumb it down for your own benefit?

No, I type to the readers' expected level.

And if TV court proceedings are to be believed the testimony is made up of questions, answers, objections, cross-examination... not speeches. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

No, I type to the readers' expected level.

And if TV court proceedings are to be believed the testimony is made up of questions, answers, objections, cross-examination... not speeches. :rolleyes:

Who expects you to respond in such a manner?

[fj1200]

Who expects you to respond in such a manner?

Those who would like to see your assumptions challenged.

[jimnyc]

Those who would like to see your assumptions challenged.

I've yet to see a single person on this board ask you to post in such a manner. No one expects that. It simply makes the threads harder to read and harder to respond to.

[fj1200]

I've yet to see a single person on this board ask you to post in such a manner. No one expects that. It simply makes the threads harder to read and harder to respond to.

Oh for F' sake. Anything else you want to bitch about while we're at it? If your claims require an "expand-a-post tactic" then so be it.

[jimnyc]

Oh for F' sake. Anything else you want to bitch about while we're at it? If your claims require an "expand-a-post tactic" then so be it.

And I'll continue to laugh at the fact that you can't post beyond a 3rd grade level and can only debate at a sentence per sentence level. Then I'll get serious again and debate with the adults here who can formulate thoughts and paragraphs. If you ask nicely, I can create a "special" forum where you and the kiddies can post without being bothered by adults.

[fj1200]

And I'll continue to laugh at the fact that you can't post beyond a 3rd grade level and can only debate at a sentence per sentence level. Then I'll get serious again and debate with the adults here who can formulate thoughts and paragraphs. If you ask nicely, I can create a "special" forum where you and the kiddies can post without being bothered by adults.

Whatever dude, continue to live in your own world especially one where you're "kicking my ass." :rolleyes: BTW, take a look at post #13. Looks like you trying to break down Dragon's post sentence-by-sentence. I also notice that you started to complain about post format right after the case law you kept asking for was supplied.

[jimnyc]

Whatever dude, continue to live in your own world especially one where you're "kicking my ass." :rolleyes: BTW, take a look at post #13. Looks like you trying to break down Dragon's post sentence-by-sentence. I also notice that you started to complain about post format right after the case law you kept asking for was supplied.

As I've already stated, to do so once or twice is ok, but to do it with every single post is retarded. I also think multi-quote should always be used, but in a few cases I haven't. And I've complained about this type of posting for quite some time over the years on this board, and even in another thread with you. To try and excuse or blame your child like style of posting on others is laughable. This has NOTHING to do with the debate and EVERYTHING to do with you posting like an illiterate that can't comprehend more than one sentence at a time.