Fashion vs. Faith at Abercrombie and the Religious Discrimination Suit the Resulted

The U.S Supreme Court has announced that it will take its first hijab case to decide whether Abercrombie, the fashion retail chain, can deny employment to an otherwise qualified young woman who wished to wear a headscarf at work. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch started in 2008. A 17-year old woman named Samantha Elauf applied for a job at the Abercrombie Kids store at a mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 

Abercrombie sales associates are called “models” and they are expected, as part of their job, to look good. In fact, part of the job interview is a score on how you look. Once someone is hired, the newly hired “model” has to comply with the Abercrombie “look policy” governing their overall style and how they dress.

Elauf was aware of the general situation. She asked a friend before interviewing if she could be able to wear the hijab on the job. The friend, who knew the store’s assistant manager, was told that be expected the hijab would be fine as he has worked with someone who wore a yarmulke at Abercrombie. He did say that the look policy prohibited anything black so she would have to wear a scarf of a different color. Elauf thought that would be fine. She went to her interview (wearing what was described as “an Abercrombie like T-shirt and jeans” and her black hijab). She didn’t bring up religion or her religious reasons for wearing a headscarf. The interviewer didn’t bring it up either. The interviewers did outline other requirements of the look policy (nail polish and excessive makeup). Elauf did well in her job interview. She even got a 2 out of 3 for her appearance. Her tallied score was 6, which was normally a high enough score to “score” her the job.

After the interview, the interviewer asked her direct supervisor about the hijab. She was directed to the district manager. At that point, it was decided that the headscarf would be inconsistent with the look policy. The interviewer was told to drop Elauf’s appearance score from 2 out of 3 to 1 out of 3. This put her total at 5, which was one short of a job recommendation. Elauf did not get the job at Abercrombie.  

That’s when the EEOC sued Abercrombie for religious discrimination. It appeared to be an open and shut case and a federal district court judge decided summarily for the EEOC. Then the 10^th Circuit reversed. In a split decision, the court didn’t send the issue to trial, but instead issued summary judgment for the retail store, Abercrombie & Fitch. The court reasoned that Elauf hadn’t told Abercrombie that she would require religious accommodation under the look policy in order to wear her hijab.

A dissenting judge, Ronald Reagan appointee David Ebel, pointed out that Elauf didn’t advise the store of the need for special religious accommodation because she had every reason to assume she wouldn’t need one. She was advised by her friend (who had consulted the assistant manager) that her hijab wouldn’t violate the look policy at the store as long as she wore any color other than black. On the other hand, Abercrombie, who was in a position to know that the hijab might be in violation of its policies, never brought the issue up with Elauf. They avoided the conversation.

It is unsure exactly how the Supreme Court will handle the issue as it could be seen as an example of why flexibility may be needed when circumstances warrant it, but the Supreme Court doesn’t generally take on cases without doing so to create a principle.

If you need additional information regarding discrimination in the workplace or a hostile work environment please contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

New Employment Laws In Play Regarding Licenses for Undocumented Individuals

In 2013, the Department of Motor Vehicles was authorized to issue an original driver’s license to an individual who is not able to submit proof that their presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. (California Assembly Bill 60 created Vehicle Code section 12801.9). This same bill also made it illegal to discriminate against a person who holds such a driver’s license under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. AB 60 is to take effect on January 1^st, 2015.

The licenses issued to undocumented persons under the new law will have a distinctive design/color and will have text on the photo indicating limitations for official federal purposes. Additional provisions related to the licenses were included in Assembly Bill 1660 (passed in September) to provide protections in employment context. Employers will be prohibited from discriminating against a person because they hold a license that was issued under Vehicle Code section 12801.9. Employers will be prohibited from requiring workers to present a driver’s license unless possessing one is required by the employer or otherwise permitted by laws in place. Additional provisions have been put in place to protect holders of licenses issued under Vehicle Code section 12801.9 from unlawful release of private information, use to establish citizenship or immigration status for investigation, arrest, citation, etc.

The new licenses will not be acceptable to establish eligibility for employment and they will not be acceptable for any official federal requirements or purposes. The new laws will not change the employers’ rights regarding obtaining information in order to establish an employee’s authorization to work (required under federal law). Employers will still be required to have employees provide documentation and submit the I-9 documentation to determine work eligibility. Employer action taken in accordance with federal Immigration and Nationality Act will not be in violation of the new laws regarding the licenses and the use of licenses issued under Vehicle Code section 12801.9.

For additional information regarding the new laws regarding issuance of licenses for undocumented persons or to get further information on federal work eligibility laws, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Law Prohibits Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

After hearing the many stories from California employees, some are starting to wonder if California’s laws that prohibit religious discrimination in the workplace are enough to get the job done. One example of blatant religious discrimination follows.

A young Muslim woman went through the application process at a beauty supply store. During her interview she did not wear her hijab. After she was hired, she started her first day of work with the traditional hijab, a headscarf covering her hair, in place. She was told by her direct supervisor (in front of her coworkers and customers in the store) to take the hijab off or to go home.

She explained her religious beliefs and that the hijab held significant religious importance to the manager. The hijab is worn as an expression of devotion to God. It’s also a symbol of modesty and privacy. It’s not unique to Islam. After her thorough and careful explanation, she was sent home for not removing the hijab. She is allowed to keep her job, but her hours are cut back and she is asked to work in the back of the store. 

This is just one of many examples of religious discrimination in the workplace. Muslims face a number of difficult situations such as this, most of which are listed in the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) newest report regarding the civil rights of Muslims in California. The California offices of CAIR received 933 complaints in the last year. The Los Angeles branch received 444 complaints (the highest of any of the CAIR California offices).  

A 2012 California law prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace, but in spite of the intention of the law to provide protection, many are still reporting hostile work environments, alleged harassment, retaliation for political/religious beliefs, wrongful termination, etc.

Under California’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act, employees must provide employees with reasonable accommodations to suit religious beliefs and associated observances. The only exception is if doing so would cause “undue hardship.” To discuss the specifics of what constitutes an “undue hardship,” the meaning of “religious observance” and “religious belief” according to California law, etc. contact the employment law experts of southern California at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We can assist you in determining what rights you have and how you can protect yourself from hostile work environments. 

Unpaid Interns Now Protected from Sexual Harassment

Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill introduced by Berkeley Assembly member Nancy Skinner that protects unpaid interns and other unpaid volunteers from sexual harassment in the workplace. The governor signed the Assembly Bill on Tuesday. It expands Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights so that people in the workplace who are unpaid are included in the protection against sexual harassment in the workplace in California.

Skinner argues that basic civil rights should obviously be extended to all including interns and volunteers who are working it the workplace regardless of pay rate or no pay. They deserve the same legal protections against discrimination and harassment as paid employees. This was in response to a ruling last year by a federal district court in New York that ruled that the law doesn’t apply to unpaid interns because they are not technically employees. 

The New York case was based on allegations by a Syracuse University student that she was sexually harassed, i.e. groped and kissed by a supervisor on the job during her media company internship. She also claims that after she refused his sexual advances that he retaliated against her.

California is now the 3^rd state in the country to explicitly ban sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace specifically directed towards unpaid interns. Protection is also offered for gender-based discrimination through the new California law. Other states that have similar laws include: Oregon, New York, and the District of Columbia.

If you have any questions regarding discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace whether you are an employee or an intern, please get in touch with the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Labor Law Update: Changes in Sexual Harassment Protection

New employment laws or amendments to existing laws are passed by the California legislature every year. The changes can directly impact the relationship between an employer and their employees as well as how they run their business. 2014 saw dozens of new labor laws go into effect.  

One important change that occurred in 2014 was a result of an amendment to Government Code 12940. It clarifies the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace. After a 2013 appellate decision, there was a question as to whether or not there needed to be sexual desire on the part of the perpetrator in order to establish a legitimate sexual harassment claim. Bill 292 addressed this issue.

The California legislature passed Senate Bill 292 in 2013 and we saw it go into effect on January 1, 2014. This amendment to the previous employment law defining sexual harassment in the workplace in California redefines the issue: sexual harassment is prohibited under California law without regard to the sexual desire of the perpetrator. It was reasoned that sexual harassment (like other forms of harassment) isn’t necessarily motivated by desire. In fact, harassment of all types is more often motivated by hostility. The passing of this bill addressed the confusion in the California courts regarding whether or not a sexual harassment claim can be established without a basis of desire. Senate Bill 292 clarifies what the California courts have been recognizing for years: that sexual motive or desire isn’t necessary in order to establish a sexual harassment claim and bring action against an employer. 

If you or someone you know has questions about what constitutes a sexual harassment claim or if you feel you work in a hostile work environment get in touch with the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

President Obama set to Sign Order Banning Anti-Gay Workplace Discrimination

White House news indicates that President Barack Obama is going to sign an order banning anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. The president has directed his staff to draft an executive order. The order would place a ban on workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender employers of any federal contractors. Many see this move as the clearest indication that the Obama administration is prepared to take action on LGBT rights in spite of Congress’s failure to do so.

It’s unclear whether Obama intends the leak of the “intention” to sign as a warning to lawmakers to pass more extensive workplace discrimination laws in the limited window available to them before he takes matters into his own hands or if it is the long overdue action he pledged to take during his 2008 campaign.

The planned executive order comes after years of what many view as inaction. The Obama administration has been calling for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which would make it illegal for employers throughout the entire nation to fire or discriminate or harass anyone in their employ due to sexual orientation or gender identity). The bill passed the Senate, but stalled in the House. Due to this stall the president has felt an increase in pressure to take action on his own. 

If the proposed executive order were to take effect, it would affect approximately 16 million workers. The executive order under discussion would build upon protections already in place that prohibit general discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or nationality. Millions of Americans in most states in the country head to work every morning unsure of their job security because of who they are or who they love. There are currently no federal laws providing adequate protection for LGBT workers fearing employment discrimination. 

For additional information on legal protection from harassment and discrimination in the workplace for LGBT contact the experts in California employment law at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

$2.4 Million Settlement for Guest Thai Workers Awaiting Approval by U.S. District Court

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced June 3, 2014 that EEOC and four Hawaii growers settled for $2.4 million in response to a suit alleging that Thai guest workers supplied by labor contractor Global Horizons, Inc. were discriminated against based on race and national origin. The proposed settlements are still waiting for approval by the U.S. District Court for District of Hawaii, but as they follow the court’s ruling earlier in the year that Global Horizons was in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through their engagement in what was described as a pattern of harassment and discrimination against the Thai workers, many expect quick approval.

In 2011, the EEOC sued Global Horizons, as well as multiple growers in Hawaii and a couple growers in Washington State. The high-profile human trafficking case alleged that Global Horizons misled poor Thai workers that were forced to pay high fees in order to enter the United States as guest workers. Once on US soil, the Thai guest workers were then subjected to substandard housing, passport confiscation, harassment on the job, passport confiscation, etc.

Four separate proposed consent decrees would benefit approximately 500 Thai workers (those who worked between 2003 and 2007). Under the proposed consent decrees, defendant Mac Farms would pay $1.6 million, Kauai Coffee would be $425,000, Captain Cook Coffee would pay $100,000 and Kelena Farms would pay $275,000. Payments would go to the alleged discrimination victims in amounts to be determined by the EEOC.

For more information regarding equal employment or discrimination in the workplace, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, your California discrimination and employment law experts.