Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner V. Abercrombie And Fitch Stores, Inc.

I was impressed with the oral argument of Vance V. Ball State University case. When I first listened to the oral argument I gained a clear understanding as to why petitioner Vance reason where for filing a lawsuit. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; make it unconstitutional for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC, n.d., para. 1). Due to the power that businesses needed to fire workers spontaneously, government and federal laws have been set up to guarantee that purposes behind end are defended and that separation does not assume a part in one's capacity to keep up their occupation (Szypszak,

The nature of this case concerns Christopher Alston, who was practicing Rastafarian (Lally, 2015). Rastafarian is a religion that began in Jamaica in the 1920s and 30s, believing that Haile Selassie was an emperor, a direct descendant of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, whose death was a hoax and is still alive, living in protection awaiting the Day of Judgment (Rastafarianism). The Rastafarian’s hair is worn in dreadlocks, which is inspired by the Nazarites of the Bible and are symbolic to the Lion of Judah (Rastafarianism). Christopher applied for a job as a delivery driver for Mims Distributing Company in May 2014 (Lally, 2015). As a Rastafarian, Christopher was restricted from cutting his hair and hadn’t cut his hair since 2009 (Lally, 2015). Christopher was informed by Mims Distributing Company that he would have to cut his hair if he wanted the position (Lally, 2015). Because of his religious belief, he refused to cut his hair and the company was unable to hire him due to noncompliance

Facts: This is a Title VII action alleging harassment based on national origin and religion. The facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Rafiq. On May 11, 2001, Mohommed Rafiq was hired as a car salesman. Rafiq was born in India and is a practicing Muslim. The alleged harassment began on September 11, 2001. When he arrived for work that afternoon, his co-workers were watching news coverage of the terrorist attacks and one of them asked him in a mocking way, "Where have you been?", as if to infer that he had participated in the attacks.

Ling Nan ZHENG, Ren Zhu Yang, Yun Zhen Huang, Wen Qin Lin, Sai Bing Wang, Ye Biao Yang, Cui Zhen Lin, Rong Yun Zheng, Hui Fang Lin, Xiu Ying Zheng, Jin Ping Lin, Hui Ming Dong, Yu Bing Luo, Sau Chi Kwok, Sai Xian Tang, Yi Zhen Lin, Rui Fang Zhang, Mei Juan Yu, Mei Ying Li, Qin Fang Qiu, Yi Mei Lin, Mei Zhu Dong, Fung Lam, Xiu Zhu Ye, Sing Kei Lam, and Xue Jin Lin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC., Albert Nigri, and Hagai Laniado, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Ngon Fong Yuen, 88 Fashion Inc., Top Five Sportswear, Inc., S.P.R. Sportswear, Inc. and 91 Fashion, Inc., Defendants, Lai Huen Yam, a/k/a Steven Yam, 998 Fashions, Inc. and 103 Fashion Inc.,

Click the About the EEOC link and select Newsroom. Select a press release about an employee lawsuit published within the last 6 months.

An employee is refused e.g. training or lost a job, because of their beliefs, race or sexuality

Recognized for good-looking, all-American, and typically white male and female clothing models, Abercrombie & Fitch has develop into a special type of model of late-a model of asserted employment discrimination (Stephanie 2005). The clothing idol lately cleared up two private class actions and a civil action law suits by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") by consenting to compensate more than $40 million to African American, Hispanic, and Asian plaintiffs who claimed that Abercrombie discriminated against them (Stephanie 2005); Abercrombie in addition entered into a agreement with the EEOC recognized as a Consent Decree. In Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie, et al., West v. Abercrombie, et al., and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the plaintiffs disputed that they were either restricted to low visibility, back-of-the-store kind jobs or laid off and fired on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Company 15 F.3d 1375 (6th Cir 1994) case supports our recommendation of litigation because Cooper could not establish prima facie case of discrimination, that Oak reasonably accommodated her religious beliefs. The district court concluded that Oak could not have relieved Cooper all Saturday work responsibility without suffering undue hardship, i.e., the need to hire another employee or a resulting loss of production.

You have raised some great points as to J.C. encounter of unlawful religious discrimination. As you said J.C. tried to compromise with his employer by packing or wearing his dreads in a neat and professional matter. But as a result his employer refused which resulted in J.C. losing his job. I agree with your analysis that the company's actions toward J.C. is violation of Title VII. However I also believe that it is a violation of his first amendment right. As a citizen of this so called great land, we are allowed to practice our religion and face no form of discrimination. This case not only describes a violation against Title VII but also the first amendment

Despite the reasonable intent, Abercrombie and Fitch crossed a line when they refused to allow some leeway when it was for a religious cause, much like Trans World Airlines in the TWA v. Hardison case. Trans World Airlines fired Hardison after he refused coming into work on Saturday due to his religious beliefs. He sued TWA and won, claiming his religious beliefs were being sabotaged by unjust work hours. These cases are alike in the way that the employers declined to accommodate to an employee's religious needs, excusing their actions by saying the person in question didn’t follow company

In another employment at will case, fourteen employees from a Florida law firm were fired for wearing orange. The employees were told that management had taken the color of their shirts to mean, “that they were staging some sort of protest.” However, many of the group says that they wear orange shirts on paydays to “promote a feeling of togetherness when they would go out as a group for drinks” . An executive brought the orange wearing employees into a conference room and told “anyone wearing orange for an innocent reason should speak up”, an employee immediately explained the happy hour color. After this, the executive left the room to confer with other executives. When they returned, it was stated that all people wearing orange were fired although someone had said they were wearing the color for innocent reasons . Additionally, if the employees truly had been protesting by wearing the color orange, it would have been illegal to fire them for protesting . The employees reported feeling as though their rights had been infringed upon after being fired for wearing the color orange. These employees were fired without any warning, without being asked to even change

Discrimination continues to run rampant throughout organizations in both the United States and worldwide. The Supreme Court case, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealt with 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees that claim that they had been a victim of gender discrimination. The ensuing pages will discuss the specific issues that the plaintiffs encountered, followed by suggestions from a human resource manager’s stand point in rectifying adverse impact within the Wal-Mart organization.

Don Edwards, having just earned an MBA, decided to take a job as an analyst with a prestigious

Due to Sonia’s religious beliefs management should understand and accommodate Sonia’s personal choice for attire. Because Sonia’s attire does not impose undue hardship on the organization’s legitimate business interests, there is no reason not to allow Sonia’s attire in the work place. In order to prove undue hardship an employer must be able to prove that any accommodation would require more than ordinary business costs, diminish efficiency in other jobs, impair workplace safety, infringe on the rights and benefits of other employees, cause other coworkers to carry the burden of the accommodated employee’s hazardous or burdensome work, or conflict with other laws or regulations (Gross, 2012, para 10).

Jefferies was successful in his pursuit and as a result, his exclusionary sentiment permeated the workplace culture of the organization at every level; from the sprawling 300-acre headquarters in the woods of Ohio to each individual retail outlet. At the heart of this culture was the “Looks Policy”, an unforgiving guide to how employees should present themselves at work. This policy governed every aspect of an employee’s appearance from the number of times they rolled the cuffs of their jeans to the tone of their skin, which was preferably ‘sun kissed’. Not only did this policy contribute to a negative work environment where employees felt they were constantly being evaluated on the basis of their physical attributes alone, but it also led to human rights violations wherein job applicants were denied employment on the basis of their race and/or religion. In a 2004 class action lawsuit filed against the retail giant, several thousands of former A&F employees alleged the company discriminated against African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans in its hiring practices as well as its advertisements. The claimants also purported that non-white employees were frequently relegated to the back-of-store tasks where they would not be visible to store patrons. A&F settled the lawsuit out of