Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Obama Inc’s Claim that Hijab Ban is Discriminatory
October 4, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield 14 Comments
Islamic activists have been making big inroads for in America for the repression of women by filing lawsuits that push the Hijab, one of the many Islamic headcoverings, as a human rights.
Obama Inc’s pet EEOC personnel have scored victories in their Hijab Jihad against Disney and Abercrombie and Fitch. But now they have suffered a setback.
The woman, Samantha Elauf, applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in a Tulsa, Oklahoma mall in 2008. The company, which focuses on hip casual wear for consumers aged 18 to 22, has a policy against head covers of any kind for its employees. According to the EEOC it amounts to discrimination based on religion and that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are required to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs or practices of employees, the agency says, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on business.
A federal judge in Oklahoma agreed, ruling in 2011 that the law imposes an obligation on the employer to accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee unless it would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business. In his order the U.S. Chief District judge, Gregory Frizzell, said the store violated Elauf’s civil rights when it didn’t hire her. Elauf was awarded $20,000 in damages and the EEOC bragged that the court sent a clear message to employers.
But the retailer appealed and this week the Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in favor of the EEOC, saying the store’s policy is not discriminatory, but rather intended to promote and showcase its brand, which “exemplifies a classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing.”
Additionally, the federal appellate court found that Elauf’s religious headscarf only became an issue after she was ruled out as a candidate. “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her headscarf or `hijab’ for religious reasons.”
Other Hijab Jihad victories have been scored, but this sets a contrary precedent that a business does have the right to control the look of employees who represent a brand.
The EEOC’s witness on behalf of the Hijab was apparently John Esposito, the director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center.
Esposito is funded by Saudi money and Saudi Arabia has been aggressively pushing the Hijab Jihad against women abroad. He is notorious for his Islamist ties and support for terrorists.
Saudi Arabia has been absolutely ruthless about enforcing its Jihad against women. At the cost of women’s lives.
Saudi Arabia’s religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.
According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Islam.
One witness said he saw three policemen “beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya”.
The father of one of the dead girls said that the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out.
The Saudi enforcement of the Hijab or other headcoverings are routine. Now Obama’s EEOC used a Saudi agent to enforce them in America. Is this really what equality means?http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-obama-incs-claim-that-hijab-ban-is-discriminatory/