Jury Awards Muslim Woman $20,000 After Fashion Store Refused to Hire Her Because She Would Not Remove Hijab
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 5:33 AM
A Muslim woman was awarded $20,000 from a federal court after she was not hired to work at a local Abercrombie Kids store because she wears a hijab.
The woman knew about the store’s rules before applying for the job.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20110721_14_A11_CUTLIN208536
The Muslim woman was awarded $20,000 even though she never worked at the store.
Pundit Press reported:
Claiming that Abercrombie Kids did not hire her because she wears a hijab, a jury in Tulsa, Arizona has awarded a Muslim woman $20,000 in damages. This comes despite the fact that the woman, Samantha Elauf, didn’t work a single day for Abercrombie and despite Abercrombie’s “Look Policy” that states clearly that it will not hire people who do not conform to their dress code.
During her job interview with Abercrombie, Ms. Elauf wore a hijab, a piece of clothing that Ms. Elauf believes is religiously mandated. At the time, she was informed that Abercrombie would not be able to hire her, not on religious grounds, but because she refused to remove her head scarf.
Abercrombie has, what they call, a “Look Policy.” In other words, because they are a fashion store, they want people to dress in their fashion and their style. Ms. Elauf stated that she would not take off her hijab even if she was hired and was at the job site. She was then informed that Abercrombie had decided not to hire her. So Ms. Elauf sued…
…Barbara Seely, the attorney representing Ms. Elauf, stated that Abercrombie was a menacing corporation that just wanted to produce “cookie-cutter kids.” When her client was awarded the $20,000, Ms. Seely stated it was “icing on the cake” since Abercrombie was already found liable.
“Samantha Elauf deserves every penny,” she said. “She is a courageous young woman who stuck with this case for three years in order to stand up for her rights and the rights of every Muslim woman to work wearing a headscarf.”
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
NEWLY DISCOVERED VIDEO Previously Scrubbed From YouTube Shows Trayvon Martin Participating in Local Fight Club
Published May 21, 2012 at 12:19 am - 55 Comments
Cat lady commented:
I want my WAY regardless of your rules.
Mahdi Al-Dajjal commented:
No doubt as part of the “Settlement Agreement”, the store owners agreed to an affirmative action type muslim outreach program where they agreed to recruit and hire more hijab-wearing women AND they’re going to send their entire management team to sensitivity classes given by the local Imam!
Cargosquid commented:
Why in the hell did the store even tell her why she was not hired? Dumbasses.
All they had to say was, “Sorry. We’ll keep you in consideration. Good-bye.”
Marta commented:
Further proof that Americans are now too stupid for our jury system to work anymore.
bigkahuna commented:
I hope her attorney fees were $40,000 and I hope someone reminds her she is still part of a religion of hate and intollerance. Ask her if women are allowed to walk around in her mosque of hate without a rag on he head ?
AF should have said their religion was money and her rag on her head would interfere with their religion…or their religion was global warming and she would not be a good portrayer of that myth. Global cooling and she would have been fine.
Now I agree that the raghead should have to follow their policies but why would you tell a muslim woman she has to take that rag off for the job? Why not just say you have 5 other applicants to interview and then hire the one who best fits your needs. This would never have been an issue .
katablog.com commented:
That’s right, blame the victim instead of realizing that EVERY work place has a dress policy that EVERYONE who wants to work there has to follow. This is America, land of the free, home of the brave!
Nelle commented:
I believe my religion requires me to wear a large crucifix to work. My local middle-east market better hire me, or I’ll sue.
olm commented:
Why would a Muslim woman even apply at Abercombie?
She wanted a lawsuit going in.
Americans are stupid.
olm commented:
What victim? Abercombie? The Muslim woman is not a victim.
That’s right, check your logic at the door. How is a woman in full covering even potentially going to work at a store that sells hooker in training clothes for pre teens?
Charlie commented:
Only 20K? Her lawyers lost money on that one. 1/3 of that won’t even cover the paralegal.
Finncrisp commented:
More court ordered redistribution. I suppose AF will now have all sorts of non conformists applying for their 20K within days. Another Torte bonanza….
retire05 commented:
You can bet if the woman had a rosary hanging around her neck, the judge would have ruled that the store was within its rights to insist there be no religious symbols exposed do to its dress code.
Oh, wait, a hajab is a “religious” symbol, isn’t it. Well, let’s be honest, shall we? Judges only subscribe to secularism when it comes to Christian symbols, not symbols of the Religion of Pieces.
Ausonius commented:
If you needed proof that property rights have eroded to a point of no return, look no further. If a business cannot operate in a way that promotes their business, then the leases they make and the goods they purchase for sale have little value.
So much for assimilation.
In spite of our first atheist president’s assertion that we are not a Christian nation, most of the country would dissagree. The voters sadly fail to make a number of connections that result in “I don’t know what is going wrong with us” and yet they keep voting for atheist marxism so long as they promise to steal from their neighbors and provide them with a portion of the proceeds.
Black Sabbath commented:
Nothing more Leftist than an Abercrombie store which caters to snooty Libs. Here’s your idealism coming back to haunt you.
RightOne40 commented:
This was going on three years now so Im guessing that Abercrombe’s insurance said make a deal and get this over with….this woman got about $12,800.00 in her pocket after fees and costs…the attorney got $6,666.66 and her costs…if it was on contingency, if not, and if on retainer…she spent a bucket load on this case…lesson for employers…do not specify why you would not hire someone…..
PNC Reader commented:
Tulsa, Arizona?
succotash commented:
Ain’t America a great country?
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Well, it’s now obvious:
Our Islamic overlords are now superior to us. Not equal—superior. The rest of us must obey workplace regulations, or face being fired, and no “idealistic” attorneys will come along to defend our rights, or attack them big, bad ol’ “cookie cutter” corporations on our behalf! Our overlords, however, cannot be expected to obey the same rules! They are superior! And a woman’s right to wear a headscarf trumps all! (What about a woman’s right NOT to wear a headscarf, or a body bag?. . . oh, let’s not talk about that. It’s sooooo insensitive.)
Also, as another poster points out, this case shows how property rights in the US have eroded.
Karen commented:
Good for her. It is against US law to refuse to hire someone because of their religious dress.
Think about it – what would your reaction be if someone refused to hire someone who wore a cross? Or had a I love Jesus bumper sticker. Or a Jewish lady wearing a wig or a Jewish man wearing a beanie (can’t spell the real word).
If they can do it to one religion – they can do it to all.
And this would also conversly apply to muslim owned businesses – they can’t force someone to go against their religion and wear a “I heart Islam” t-shirt etc.
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
It won’t matter, #16.
Even if you don’t specify a reason, you will still be sued is you don’t hire a Moslem, because—well, they’re just superior! I’m sure a new rule is coming along that you must hire Moslem applicants, the moment they show up, because not to do so would be “Islamophobic.” In fact, you may just have to fire some of your other employees in order to make room for them, unless you want to be sued by an attorney who just knows all your horrid business types are just plotting to turn out cookie cutter kids, and deserve to be punished for being so evil.
#1AMERICAN commented:
companies will learn not to hire mooslimes because all they want is a law suit for money and to get CAIR involved
Craig commented:
This should open the door for them to apply at Hoot ers and strip clubs. The law suits are a nice little bonus while collecting unemployment.
cal rifkin commented:
…money for nuthin”
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
You don’t get it, Karen.
In the future, we will all be required to wear that “I HEART Islam t-shirt”—or else.
Businesses have had the right, up until now, to prescribe dress codes for their employees, and, no, you can’t wear a huge, big, dangling cross, if your job is food preparation, and it gets in the soup; you must wear scrubs in a hospital situation, even if they cover up your rosary, or your Jewish wig. You wear a uniform if your job requires a uniform. Some jobs don’t want you to have visible tattoos, so if you’re covered with Oriental style Buddhist tatoos you might want to re-think applying for such a position.
If you’re 6 feet tall, you can’t work at Clothing for Petites! (women 5″3 and under) because you can’t model their clothes for potential buyers. Same rule, only in reverse, applies for the Tall Gals shop.
By the way, people get criticized for wearing (non-Islamic) religious symbols all the time, and get asked to get rid of them, because they’re “insensitive.” This does not happen to Moslems. Moslem are our new overlords. The rules do not apply to them.
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Companies will have to hire Moslems, or face being sued.
They will not be allowed not to submit to their Islamic employees.
RightOne40 commented:
Ooops…this was an EEOC case, so not familiar how that award is divied up
Opaobie commented:
Turn about is fair play. Maybe Brietbart or some other enterprising investigative reporter should send out scores of girls dressed like hookers applying for jobs at MUSLIM-owned businesses and DEMAND they be hired regardless of how they dress or act…they might even pick up a few bucks on the side from some of the lecherous “imams” ….
retire05 commented:
#20, Karen, I guess you are telling us that you would have no problem watching someone in Muslim “garb” loading luggage on a plane that you were about to board?
Teachers have been fired for wearing a small gold crucifix on a chain around their necks. Others have been fired for having a Bible on their desk. Not reading from it, just having it sit on their desk. Other teachers have been fired for praying together in the teacher’s break rooms.
If a company has a policy of no religious symbolism at the work place, that is their purview. That woman was going to be dealing with the public. What about Jewish customers that might have felt insulted by being helped out by a Muslim when most of the ME countries want to drive all Jews of Israel into the sea, while they shout “Death To Israel?”
If I were that store, I would appeal the judge’s ruling. Or move all stores to right-to-work states. I do agree the HR department should have just told her “Don’t call us, we’ll call you” and let it go at that but it seems they had no problem hiring her if she would conform to company policy. But that wasn’t good enough for the follower of the Pedophile Prophet, was it?
Peggy R commented:
Hiring is ALWAYS discriminatory. Companies usually seek to pick “the best fit” not just in skills but in personality, etc., to get along with the existing staff and to espouse the “company line.” When called by a prospect who didn’t get hired, an HR rep should simply say the position was filled. Thank you. We’ll contact you if something else pops up. No further information or statements.
Andreas K. commented:
She deserves a one-way ticket to Iran, nothing else.
Bill Mitchell commented:
PLAN FOR TODAY:
1) Go to The Gap in a gorilla suit and refuse to take it off based upon religious grounds.
2) After being denied employment, contact lawyer.
3) Sue The Gap for anti-primate bias.
Yep.
Bill Mitchell commented:
I once worked in a fine dining restaurant where a tuxedo was the uniform. If however I showed up for work in cutoffs and flipflops should they have a right to fire me? A uniform is a uniform.
PCM commented:
This is why a lot of people hate lawyers.
owl commented:
Welcome to America 2011. We lost our survival instincts in favor of sensitivity. We are just dumb stupid. We do not understand the difference between chaos in schools and spanking. We give a longer sentence to someone that kills a dog than a person.
They are going ahead with the mosque at ground zero. We elected a USA president that sat in a church of white hatred for 20 years. We do not even know who the h*** he really is, much less view his touted smart Harvard papers. Only in America 2011 could average American reporters be this dumb stupid.
Dwayne commented:
It should be Tulsa, Oklahoma. Also, Tulsa is where the leftist fringe gather in our state. Years ago a jury awarded damages to a guy who fell through a skylight while attempting to break into a school. Not much brains in Tulsa.
tom beebe st louis commented:
Great move! This will further fuel the revulsion against intrusion by government into the private business of contracts between employers and employees. This extremism whether exhibited by jurys or by bureacracies will backfire. Let’s all fan the flames.
BurmaShave commented:
Our jury system is broken. It needs to be revised somehow to fix it.
cal rifkin commented:
PCM…sounds like the lawyer did do his job, so to speak.
redpillpatriot commented:
Glad to see while I was away on vacation, America continued to go down the sh!tter.
I say they wear plastic bags over their heads instead!
chris commented:
Awesome. So A&F either allows for religious garb to be worn by their employees or pay out $20K each time they say no thanks. I can imagine that they will 1) either not be hiring for quite a while until they can legally get out from under this or 2) be inundated with Muslim teens who have no interest in working but simply want the payout.
America is one screwed up country.
bc3b commented:
I fault Abercronbie for disclosing the reason for not hiring her. Anyonw who hires Muslims, with all their special demands, is crazy.
tommy mc donnell commented:
another example of the corruption of our judicial system by the legal profession. to the american people the judicial system is supposed to be a dispenser of justice. to the legal profession it is a dispenser of someone else’s money. our legal system is a giant money wheel for the legal profession.
why is it that liberal america never complains about the enormous amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of the legal profession? a small group of people that doesn’t make anything for anybody nor do anything for anybody yet rakes in a disproportionate amount of the money earned each year. it might be the only legitimate claim of a disproportionate amount of wealth in the hands of a few that didn’t earn it in this country.
could the answer to my question be that the legal profession is a major supporter of the democratic party.
Kingslayor commented:
I would like to know what the result would be if this muslim women applied for a teachers job at a public school??? Would they change the rule of seperation of church and state??? Or is that only enforced when it come to Christians???
Meg commented:
Stores. please train your HR people. As a former employer, I alway said, “Thank you for considering our store for employment. We still have other applicants to interview. We will contact you once a decision is made.” After a few weeks, send out a letter thanking the person again and state the position has been filled and that their application will be kept on file for six months.
fightinggranny commented:
Shame on any business ALLOWING themselves to be blackmailed. This is exactly what it is. What reasonable person, with no agenda, would apply for a job with a company who has stipulated dress codes. We should outlaw these garments just like France did.
bg commented:
++
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO “SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE”, DOES THAT NOT APPLY TO MOSQUES??
Appeasing Muslims
[scroll up/down for more, also note the author, thanks..]
==
AuntieMadder commented:
#16 July 26, 2011 at 8:45 am
Black Sabbath commented:
Nothing more Leftist than an Abercrombie store which caters to snooty Libs. Here’s your idealism coming back to haunt you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s how I see it, too. Abercrombie and that Muslim woman deserve each other.
Josh commented:
A woman with a Hijab is not at all atractive and it would make me want to shop somewhere else. Might as well go to work with a cannonball chained around one’s foot and a muzzle over one’s mouth if you are gonna go ahead and be forced to wear a Hijab to make your ‘god’ happy.
The Bible says that a woman’s hair is her covering. God (not Allah) says that her hair is sufficient and she doesn’t need to cover her head because of her hair, which he gave her to show his glory. The Lord (Jesus) is not a prison guard or warden, nor is he an oppressor of women.
Molon Labe commented:
#21
What an idiot you are. So I suppose you would hire an ex felon to watch your children? Or a goth looking person if you sold Porche’s. Personally I think if a woman choose to wear a bikini in school because of her religioun, that’s her right.
You are really the type of person I’ve seen on juries. The type who say, “oh he couldn’t have done that, he looks like my cousin. My cousin is capable of that.”
Right skippy.
Radegunda commented:
Why would that beeyotch want to work at a “menacing corporation” anyway? Chris #44 may be right: she just wanted the payola, and to do her bit of legal jihad to force her slave-cult on the rest of us.
Sometimes you have to wonder how Muslims could get so much pleasure from being obnoxious and making people despise them — and then whining about “Islamophobia.”
And “cookie-cutter kids”? You’d find them anywhere that girls are shrouded and required to stay that way.
el polacko commented:
this was never about landing a job…this is the chip, chip, chipping away at western culture from within until the day when the worldwide caliphate has been established and sharia is the law of all the lands.
bg commented:
++
hmmm, wonder how much a NUDIST could sue for??
==