Hello!  I have to revise my initial post and need your help to do so.  I have included the issue to which I made an initial post and my instructor's feedback - which is to be taken into account in my revised post.  Please ,  please just take my initial post, revise it properly taking into account instructor feedback and kindly re-tool/re-engineer my post.  Add your changes in BOLD to the revised post so I can clearly see what was revised.

Thank you so much.

Issue:

There are two sides to consider in the Abercrombie & Fitch case. On the one hand, we have the job candidate’s side. She went to the job interview wearing a hijab. The interviewer did not remark on the hijab, and the candidate also did not volunteer that her religious beliefs required her to wear a hijab. She was subsequently not hired based on the perception that her appearance was incongruous with the company’s look policy. For example, caps are not permitted and the male sales associates (referred to as “models” in the company’s corporate language) are often shirtless and in sweatpants in order to create the mood at the stores for the aesthetic for which Abercrombie & Fitch has become known: young, preppy, and hormonally charged. When she was notified that she was not hired for the position, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that, in turn, filed a lawsuit on her behalf alleging a violation of Title VII.On the other hand, we have Abercrombie & Fitch’s side. As a company doing business in the United States, Abercrombie & Fitch is legally permitted to hire those employees who fit its look policy. This is no different from the look requirements for the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, the Chicago Bulls, the New York City Ballet company, or for jockeys hired by thoroughbred owners to race them at the Kentucky Derby. In all of these cases, there are height, size, and other look requirements for employment that are justified by the particular demands and aesthetics of the position. She was found to be qualified for the job but her dress was clearly in conflict with Abercrombie & Fitch’s look policy. Yet, the job applicant knowingly sought employment at this retailer.

According to the law, should a special accommodation be required due to a religious practice, then Title VII dictates that the look requirements give way to the religious requirement in order not to be considered an act of religious discrimination.

The EEOC prevailed in the District Court, but this judgment was reversed by the Tenth Circuit on the ground that failure-to-accommodate liability only attaches when a job candidate provides the potential employer with knowledge of the need for an accommodation due to religious practice. Once it reached the Supreme Court, the decision was made in favor of the job candidate. According to Justice Scalia,

Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices—that they be treated no worse than other practices. Rather, it gives them favored treatment, affirmatively obligating employers not “to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s” “religious observance and practice.” An employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an “aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,” it is no response that the subsequent “fail[ure] . . . to hire” was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.

The only dissenting opinion was that of Justice Thomas who wrote:

Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.”…I would hold that Abercrombie’s conduct did not constitute “intentional discrimination.” Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf ’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf… In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices…Resisting this straightforward application of §1981a, the majority expands the meaning of “intentional discrimination” to include a refusal to give a religious applicant “favored treatment.”…But contrary to the majority’s assumption, this novel theory of discrimination is not commanded by the relevant statutory text.

Instructions for revising initial post:

Requirements for Revising Your Initial Post:

• Submit a revision of your initial post by either replying to your own post, or to the feedback provided to you by your professor.
• There is no minimum word requirement for your revised initial post. But you should always explain the reasons for revising your post so that it is clear what you are doing. If you are revising only a few words, or an ethical theory, you should avoid submiting a post with vague language.As it has been pointed out in each of the past weeks, it is important to recognize that no one can read your mind so you need to provide the setting for your revision (Why? What prompted it? What course material informed you?), and it is important to write in clear language and complete sentences.
• Your revised initial post is your chance to correct any oversights or errors in your initial post, or show your improved understanding of the material and its applications to the case at hand. You may, for example, come to the realization that another ethical theory is better than the one that you initially chose. Accordingly, your revision should indicate that you chose another ethical theory and an explanation why you find the replacement more suitable. You may also find the need to revise any relevant portions of your analysis. Or, you might have realized that your conclusion did not take into account important factors necessary for your evaluation of the situation.
• You should maximize the improvement of your initial post by employing your professor’s feedback as a guide. Keep in mind that you may not always receive direct feedback from your professor. But your professor will have submitted feedback in the discussion to other posts. Read your professor’s feedback whether it is addressed to you directly or to other fellow students. This will give you much to think about and apply to your own post.
• If your professor or a fellow classmate responds to your revised initial post, and on this basis, you find good reason to submit yet another revision, then by all means do so. The more you improve your initial post, the more you will benefit both in terms of your learning and most likely your grade.

My  initial post:

This is a tough one. The Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuit is a case that entails the Abercrombie & Fitch Organization and Samantha Elauf, a job interviewee at the organization. Samantha is a Muslim devotee and abides by the Muslim beliefs and practices that enforce on wearing a hijab (headscarf) which is against the organization’s look policy that prohibits wearing of hats. During the interview, Samantha did not request to be issued with an accommodation from the Abercrombie’s “look policy” since she is a Muslim and her hijab was a barrier in meeting the organization’s requirements. The interviewer also did not raise any remarks regarding the hijab during the interview. Consequently, Samantha was not hired and she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which then on her behalf filed a lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Organization asserting that the company violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

According to the market system existing in the US, companies have the freedom of doing whatever they wish with and within their business giving Abercrombie & Fitch Organization the freedom to impose a “look policy” that regulates its employee’s dressing code like that of prohibiting wearing of hats . On the other hand, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers from engaging in employees’ discrimination on the basis of their religion, race, sex, color and national origin.

In my opinion, I strongly believe that Abercrombie & Fitch Organization is the main root cause of the problem that led to the lawsuit in the first place. This is because although Samantha should have requested to be issued with accommodation from the Abercrombie’s “look policy,” it was the responsibility of the interviewer to inform her on the issue regarding the organization’s policy that regulate the dressing code of the employees such as the prohibition of wearing head gear. Also the company did not ask her about the reason for wearing the hijab but rather acted on mere and vague suspicion when they decided not to hire Samantha.

I am probably going to get a lot of disagreement here from others but feel the government should implement and enforce strict rules that regulate organization’s business activities and the hiring regulations to ensure that equality and justice is achieved in this particular area.

Resources

 http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/06/articles/discrimination/supreme-court-sides-with-eeoc-in-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case/

 Greenhouse, Steven. "Abercrombie & Fitch bias case is settled." New York Times, November 17 (2004): A16.

Instructor Response/Feedback:

Thomas,

Another issue to consider is the idea of BFOQ. Bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) are employment qualifications that employers can consider when they make decisions about the hiring and retention of employees. The qualification should relate to some essential job duty, The BFOQ rule allows employers to hire individuals based on race, sex, age, and national origin if these characteristics are necessary for the job.This is an exception and a defense for employers to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects employees from discrimination based on religion, sex, age, national origin and color at the workplace. An example would be a church requiring clergy to be of a certain denomination. How do you think Abercrombie and Fitch could prove the "Look Policy" is a bona fide occupational qualification? A retail store's image is an important business strategy because consumers often use that image to evaluate what retailers they like. Part of that image might be the physical or demographic attributes of employees. This image is so important, a business may include these employee attributes as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). A BFOQ may seem biased, but is really a reasonable necessity for performing a job. For example, if a role in a movie is for a teenage girl, then requirements for that job would be a female who is (or at least can be perceived) as someone around 13 to 17 years of age. In this case, it would not violate the Age Discrimination Law. But hiring on the basis of these personal attributes could be a violation of Title VII, unless they can be shown to be BFOQs. Usually, if these BFOQs can be determined to be related to the heart or essence of the business, the discrimination is legal and even acceptable. The question for a retail business is how to build and establish a desired store image using employee appearance without discriminating. 

The Abercrombie & Fitch case is related to the issue of employee looks and store image, but the lawsuit against A&F states discrimination based on race and country of origin discrimination. Could a defense for A&F be that the image of the retail store is so important that employee attributes could be considered BFOQs? 

SophiaPretty

(5)

Status NEW Posted 25 Jul 2017 03:07 PM My Price 9.00

Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k y-----------ou -----------for----------- yo-----------ur -----------int-----------ere-----------st -----------and----------- bu-----------yin-----------g m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l b-----------e q-----------uic-----------kly-----------

Not Rated(0)

• Buy Answer