Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

Shenshen

irishconvert wrote: »

Sure. And can they also specify skin and eye colour? Is it discrimination if they want that look for their shop?

Do you think HMV can be forced to employ a 75-year-old?
Do you think a hairdressers can be forced to employ someone with male pattern baldness?
Do you think a gym can be forced to employ an overweight receptionist?

Yes, when it comes to customer-facing staff, shops and businesses can and do make choices based on appearance.

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

No? Opticians regularly require staff to wear glasses, if they need them or not. If they've nothing wrong with their eyes, they will have to wear glasses with simple plain glass in them rather than lenses.

It's a shop, and staff selling the product need to comply to certain marketing strategies.
A shop selling cosmetics will not allow staff to come in puffy-eyed and pimpled, they will have to wear make-up.
Staff in bars can be required to wear skimpy clothes if the owner decides this will help shift more drink.

And Dunnes staff have to comply to Dunnes uniforms.

:rolleyes:

' if someone has trouble complying for racial, gender, cultural or various other reasons, then they are discriminating'

As long as what they are asking people to do does not contravene that rough rule of thumb, then they would be fine, unless someone could prove that the request was discriminatory in some way.

Shenshen

irishconvert wrote: »

It is 100% clear that Muslim women must wear hijabs. It is in the Qur'an which (we Muslim's believe) is the direct word of God. What scholars argue about is covering of the face, but Muslim women are definitely required to cover their hair, no doubt about that.

Good.
Why then didn't she simply buy a wig? One looking like a real head of hair?

irishconvert

Shenshen wrote: »

Do you think HMV can be forced to employ a 75-year-old?
Do you think a hairdressers can be forced to employ someone with male pattern baldness?
Do you think a gym can be forced to employ an overweight receptionist?

Yes, when it comes to customer-facing staff, shops and businesses can and do make choices based on appearance.

Forced? Whay do you mean? They should not refuse jobs to any of the above people. Tell me why a 75 year old would not be welcome to work in HMV?

Shenshen

AEDIC wrote: »

:rolleyes:

' if someone has trouble complying for racial, gender, cultural or various other reasons, then they are discriminating'

As long as what they are asking people to do does not contravene that rough rule of thumb, then they would be fine, unless someone could prove that the request was discriminatory in some way.

So if a woman working in a bar requiring staff to wear skirts no longer than, say, 20cm, converted to any religion and suddenly insisted she has to work in floor-length garments, she should of course be accommodated?

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

Do you think HMV can be forced to employ a 75-year-old?
Do you think a hairdressers can be forced to employ someone with male pattern baldness?
Do you think a gym can be forced to employ an overweight receptionist?

Yes, when it comes to customer-facing staff, shops and businesses can and do make choices based on appearance.

They may very well make thier choices based on things like that...who knows. But they are not allowed to set out a policy from the start that discriminates.

To use your analogy... you will not find a job advert for the local gym that says 'fat people need not apply'.

Shenshen

irishconvert wrote: »

Forced? Whay do you mean? They should not refuse jobs to any of the above people. Tell me why a 75 year old would not be welcome to work in HMV?

Because most of their customers would be well over half a century younger, and would not be as comfortable talking to staff that old as they would be with their own age group?
How many 75 year olds have you ever seen working in music/games-shops?

And I know for a fact that gym receptionists in the past have been let go for letting themselves let go. It reflects badly on the company if the first thing customers looking for a workout and healthy figure see walking in the door is someone who they are trying NOT to look like.

Shenshen

AEDIC wrote: »

They may very well make thier choices based on things like that...who knows. But they are not allowed to set out a policy from the start that discriminates.

To use your analogy... you will not find a job advert for the local gym that says 'fat people need not apply'.

No, they would probably phrase it differently.

"Interesting position for a young, active person with an interest in sport and fitness".
That essentially reads "fat people need not apply"

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

So if a woman working in a bar requiring staff to wear skirts no longer than, say, 20cm, converted to any religion and suddenly insisted she has to work in floor-length garments, she should of course be accommodated?

It would be highly unlikely that you would find a woman from any religion insisting that a woman has to work in floor length garments, even wanting to work in a bar..... but the answer to the unlikely scenario would be yes.

Look at the olympics recently where one of the competitors for the female Judo competition was permitted to compete in modified costume for a working example of this...

irishconvert

Boombastic wrote: »

Why because they said so?..It should be no bother for the muslim then to quote where in the Qur'an in says it

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts from sin and not show of their adornment except only that which is apparent, and draw their headcovers over their necks and bosoms and not reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women (i.e., their sisters in Islam), or their female slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants free of physical desires, or small children who have no sense of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah altogether, O you Believers, in order that you may attain success.[An-Nur, 24:31]

Adornment is a translation of an Arabic word which means hair.

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

No, they would probably phrase it differently.

"Interesting position for a young, active person with an interest in sport and fitness".
That essentially reads "fat people need not apply"

What you were talking about in your earlier post was a policy decision...(Hiring only Blonde people etc...) you seem to have moved away from that a little now, which is the point.

You are not allowed to have a policy that openly discriminates. If your selection criteria ends up pointing a certain way (no fat people for example) then you have to be able to demonstrate that it is not a policy, and therefore descriminatory.

Shenshen

AEDIC wrote: »

It would be highly unlikely that you would find a woman from any religion insisting that a woman has to work in floor length garments, even wanting to work in a bar..... but the answer to the unlikely scenario would be yes.

Look at the olympics recently where one of the competitors for the female Judo competition was permitted to compete in modified costume for a working example of this...

Well, in the case we're discussing the lady in question worked for 3 years happily without religion or head gear.
She may very well have worked in such a bar instead.

So you're saying that the employer in that case, who had built his business model on skimpily-clad ladies serving potent beverages to inebriated clients will, on the whim of one employee, be forced to ditch his entire concept and risk his livelihood trying to now shift booze to customers served by women dressed like nuns?
And you think that's fair???

irishconvert

Shenshen wrote: »

No, they would probably phrase it differently.

"Interesting position for a young, active person with an interest in sport and fitness".
That essentially reads "fat people need not apply"

Illegal. Discrimination based on age. Would not be allowed.

Shenshen

AEDIC wrote: »

What you were talking about in your earlier post was a policy decision...(Hiring only Blonde people etc...) you seem to have moved away from that a little now, which is the point.

You are not allowed to have a policy that openly discriminates. If your selection criteria ends up pointing a certain way (no fat people for example) then you have to be able to demonstrate that it is not a policy, and therefore descriminatory.

I haven't moved away so much as trying to show the scope of different requirements shops and businesses can have regarding employee appearances.

If a shop wanted only blond staff or people wearing blond wigs, I don't see how that would be discriminatory.
Silly, yes. Illegal, no.

davet82

Boombastic wrote: »

Why because they said so?..It should be no bother for the muslim then to quote where in the Qur'an in says it

he just did

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, in the case we're discussing the lady in question worked for 3 years happily without religion or head gear.
She may very well have worked in such a bar instead.

So you're saying that the employer in that case, who had built his business model on skimpily-clad ladies serving potent beverages to inebriated clients will, on the whim of one employee, be forced to ditch his entire concept and risk his livelihood trying to now shift booze to customers served by women dressed like nuns?
And you think that's fair???

My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there... the law is the law.

Ush1

irishconvert wrote: »

How far can the policy go? Which of these are acceptable?

- You can't wear a scarf on your head
- You can't wear a ribbon or hairband in your hair
- You must not dye your hair
- You must have long hair
- You must have straight hair
- You must have blond hair.

Policy can go within the law, if the law allows such things for religious reasons it's open to abuse.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

did you have trouble opening the link?

They can demand what they like, but if someone has trouble complying for racial, gender, cultural or various other reasons, then they are discriminating.

Private companies are not gods, they still have to follow the law. THey cannot say "These are our rules, like it or feck off".

Yes I did read the link.

Boombastic

irishconvert wrote: »

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts from sin and not show of their adornment except only that which is apparent, and draw their headcovers over their necks and bosoms and not reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women (i.e., their sisters in Islam), or their female slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants free of physical desires, or small children who have no sense of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah altogether, O you Believers, in order that you may attain success.[An-Nur, 24:31]

Adornment is a translation of an Arabic word which means hair.

Hadith - Bukhari 1:148

The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).




So should it not be a complete body covering except for the eyes?,,,Or in relation to the wives of the prophets relieving themselves in public in case they get recognized?

not show of their adornment except only that which is apparent,

So not show their hair except only that which is apparent? This was said in relation to the manner in which women where toileting so more than like their pubic hair



Just out of interest are all the female muslims who don't wear the covering going to hell (or whatever the equilivant?)

Ush1

irishconvert wrote: »

It is 100% clear that Muslim women must wear hijabs. It is in the Qur'an which (we Muslim's believe) is the direct word of God. What scholars argue about is covering of the face, but Muslim women are definitely required to cover their hair, no doubt about that.

Hmm, how come there's more than one type of Muslim if you all just believe the Qur'an the same then?

Penn

The problem was not that she became a Muslim, the problem was the hijab which violated their uniform policy. She couldn't wear a hijab in the same way another employee wouldn't have been allowed to wear a cowboy hat. And I'm not trying to be disrespectful about the hijab or her religion by saying that, all I'm saying is that Dunnes simply had a uniform policy, and the hijab was not a part of it. Religion played no part in Dunnes' decision to fire her, only in her decision to wear the hijab.

There was no discrimination here. By treating all employees the same way and not making any allowances (as far as I can see) for ANY religion, there was no discrimination.

--Kaiser--

irishconvert wrote: »

Illegal. Discrimination based on age. Would not be allowed.

As is on disability. How many 80 year old, paraplegic firemen do you think there are?

Shenshen

irishconvert wrote: »

Illegal. Discrimination based on age. Would not be allowed.

"Great opportunity for a young and energetic barman to join the newest and coolest bar in Dublin City Centre."

http://www.irishjobs.ie/Jobs/Barman-6940581.aspx

"Young, ambitious C#.Net Developer "

http://www.irishjobs.ie/Jobs/Young-ambitious-CSharp-Net-Developer-6940649.aspx

Looks like job ads pages would be a feast for a hungry lawyer, then.

AEDIC

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

As is on disability. How many 80 year old, paraplegic firemen do you think there are?

Some occupations do have exemptions from certain requirements...for obvious reasons.

Shenshen

AEDIC wrote: »

My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there... the law is the law.

Skimpy clothing is not against the law.
Breaking the terms and conditions of a perfectly legal contract you signed, however, will result in you facing the legal consequences, in this case dismissal.

irishconvert

Shenshen wrote: »

I haven't moved away so much as trying to show the scope of different requirements shops and businesses can have regarding employee appearances.

If a shop wanted only blond staff or people wearing blond wigs, I don't see how that would be discriminatory.
Silly, yes. Illegal, no.

Why would Dunnes want to ban a head scarf anyway? Can you explain this to me? Why have such a policy?

davet82

Ush1 wrote: »

Hmm, how come there's more than one type of Muslim if you all just believe the Qur'an the same then?

protestants, catholics, ect ect

Shenshen

irishconvert wrote: »

Why would Dunnes want to ban a head scarf anyway? Can you explain this to me? Why have such a policy?

They don't.
They have a uniform policy, and their uniform makes no provision for anything to be worn on the head.

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

Skimpy clothing is not against the law.
Breaking the terms and conditions of a perfectly legal contract you signed, however, will result in you facing the legal consequences, in this case dismissal.

In this case, I would suggest Dunnes settled because their legal team advised them that they would lose a case for constructive dismissal or something similar.

Making the decision not to allow a headcovering may not have been a discriminatory act, however, if that decision excludes anyone because of a particular race or religion etc, then it becomes discriminatory.

Exactly the same would have happened if a male employee had decided to become Sikh and they had refused to let him wear a turban for example...

moneymad

irishconvert wrote: »

Illegal. Discrimination based on age. Would not be allowed.

is age real?