Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

Boombastic

Ush1 wrote: »

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

It's how man interprets the Qur'an they believe in, not the Qur'an

Gingernuts31

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It doesn't matter what their policy is, if their policy discriminates against people.

If you don't like the policy then don't work there. She would have had a copy of it at home and it should have been pointed out to her when she started wearing it to work that she either leaves it at home or she doesn't have a job anymore. Simple as. Rules are rules. If you don't want to abide by them then you don't work there. Dunnes shouldn't of settled.

irishconvert

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

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

Did you read the post I was replying to? It specified a "young" person required to work in a gym. Which would rule me out I assume (being mid 30's) even though I am fit and healthy, nothing that would prevent me from working in a gym. That is discrimination and illegal, whether you like it or not.

Ush1

Boombastic wrote: »

It's how man interprets the Qur'an they believe in, not the Qur'an

Indeed and companies will have to adhere to whatever way anyone can interpret this book? Or any book?

Boombastic

davet82 wrote: »

he just did

A definition which can be interpreted in many ways




If we are to go on the word of the Qur'an, where is our public lashings// I'm free this afternoon and could do with some entertainment

[Al-Nur 21:4] The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

irishconvert

Shenshen wrote: »

"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.

Check this out:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lidl-chain-ordered-to-pay-5000-for-ageist-job-advert-270249.html

Lads, if you report these ads you could end up with a few grand in your pocket!

Ush1

moneymad wrote: »

is age real?

Exactly, age is something that you don't choose, religion is.

AEDIC

moneymad wrote: »

is age real?

Sure is...

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union whose Article 21 prohibits all discrimination including on basis of disability, age and sexual orientation

irishconvert

Boombastic wrote: »

A definition which can be interpreted in many ways




If we are to go on the word of the Qur'an, where is our public lashings// I'm free this afternoon and could do with some entertainment

[Al-Nur 21:4] The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

There has to be four trustworthy witnesses who saw the illegal sexual intercourse. These witnesses must be upstanding members of society with no history of lying.So you can see how difficult (almost impossible) it is for a punishment like this to take place if Islam is followed correctly. Unfortunaltely Islam and some of it's followers are very far apart.

Shenshen

AEDIC wrote: »

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...

A business should be allowed to have and enforce policies the business owner believes to be positive for business. And as such, each and every business owner has to discriminate. To pretend otherwise is to close your eyes to reality.

A lot of examples have been mentioned before, from the registrar turning Evangelical and refusing to marry gay couples to the chef or the butcher turning vegetarian and refusing to handle meat.

I had pointed out earlier that since Dunnes sell both alcohol and pork products, as a Muslim she would not have been able to work in that shop anyway.

People make choices, and that's great. But choices will invariably have consequences, and to expect the rest of the world to bend over backwards to accommodate our personal choices is unrealistic.

The state and the government, representing and working for all the public, might be held to stricter rules here, but private business needs to look after their own bottom line first and foremost.
And requiring policy changes based on a change of mind of one employee can easily result in all of their employees being out of work fairly shortly.

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

A business should be allowed to have and enforce policies the business owner believes to be positive for business. And as such, each and every business owner has to discriminate. To pretend otherwise is to close your eyes to reality.

A lot of examples have been mentioned before, from the registrar turning Evangelical and refusing to marry gay couples to the chef or the butcher turning vegetarian and refusing to handle meat.

I had pointed out earlier that since Dunnes sell both alcohol and pork products, as a Muslim she would not have been able to work in that shop anyway.

People make choices, and that's great. But choices will invariably have consequences, and to expect the rest of the world to bend over backwards to accommodate our personal choices is unrealistic.

The state and the government, representing and working for all the public, might be held to stricter rules here, but private business needs to look after their own bottom line first and foremost.
And requiring policy changes based on a change of mind of one employee can easily result in all of their employees being out of work fairly shortly.

In many cases the law doesn't agree with you, again it is switching examples, but look at the recent case in the UK where the Hotel (guest house?) owners lost the discrimination case against the gay couple.

Shenshen

irishconvert wrote: »

Check this out:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lidl-chain-ordered-to-pay-5000-for-ageist-job-advert-270249.html

Lads, if you report these ads you could end up with a few grand in your pocket!

So in both Lidl's and the school's case, they were sued for making it clear they weree looking for someone on entry-level rather than someone experienced in the field?
In neither case age was even mentioned.

Fratton Fred

Penn wrote: »

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.

THe Law states that

Indirect discrimination happens where a worker or group
of workers or job applicants are treated less favourably
as a result of requirements that they might find hard to
satisfy. For example, if a job advert stated that applicants
had to be Chinese, that condition would put people of
other races and nationalities at a disadvantage.
However, it requires the employer to prove that the condition
is necessary for the job in question, to be unlawful. In
the example given, it might be considered a reasonable
condition if the job is in a Chinese restaurant.

Shenshen wrote: »

I quoted your own link back to you a few posts back.
Do me the courtesy of reading your own material.

No, you read the site, saw a bit that you liked, interpreted it your way and used that. It wasn't a proper reply.

The law states that

Indirect discrimination happens where a worker or group
of workers or job applicants are treated less favourably
as a result of requirements that they might find hard to
satisfy. For example, if a job advert stated that applicants
had to be Chinese, that condition would put people of
other races and nationalities at a disadvantage.
However, it requires the employer to prove that the condition
is necessary for the job in question, to be unlawful. In
the example given, it might be considered a reasonable
condition if the job is in a Chinese restaurant.

I even used the easy to read version in the hope that people might actually get it.

A Muslim woman would have trouble complying with the Dunnes uniform policy unless she can wear a head scarf. In order for Dunnes to stop her wearing a headscarf, they would have to show that not wearing one is a necessity for the job.

Is not wearing a headscarf a necessity for stacking shelves or operating a check out? I would be amazed if it were.

Dunnes were in breach of the Equality act.

Can someone translate this into Irish for me, in case the English version isn't sinking in properly.

Boombastic

irishconvert wrote: »

There has to be four trustworthy witnesses who saw the illegal sexual intercourse. These witnesses must be upstanding members of society with no history of lying.So you can see how difficult (almost impossible) it is for a punishment like this to take place if Islam is followed correctly. Unfortunaltely Islam and some of it's followers are very far apart.

Can you quote the bit in the Qur'an where it says about the witnesses...I am genuinely curious to how this works, not just being awkward:)

Ush1

irishconvert wrote: »

There has to be four trustworthy witnesses who saw the illegal sexual intercourse. These witnesses must be upstanding members of society with no history of lying.So you can see how difficult (almost impossible) it is for a punishment like this to take place if Islam is followed correctly. Unfortunaltely Islam and some of it's followers are very far apart.

Huh?

So if it's almost impossible for it to happen then why it is in there? Do you agree with it?

Fratton Fred

Gingernuts31 wrote: »

If you don't like the policy then don't work there. She would have had a copy of it at home and it should have been pointed out to her when she started wearing it to work that she either leaves it at home or she doesn't have a job anymore. Simple as. Rules are rules. If you don't want to abide by them then you don't work there. Dunnes shouldn't of settled.

Shenshen wrote: »

A business should be allowed to have and enforce policies the business owner believes to be positive for business. And as such, each and every business owner has to discriminate. To pretend otherwise is to close your eyes to reality.

A lot of examples have been mentioned before, from the registrar turning Evangelical and refusing to marry gay couples to the chef or the butcher turning vegetarian and refusing to handle meat.

I had pointed out earlier that since Dunnes sell both alcohol and pork products, as a Muslim she would not have been able to work in that shop anyway.

People make choices, and that's great. But choices will invariably have consequences, and to expect the rest of the world to bend over backwards to accommodate our personal choices is unrealistic.

The state and the government, representing and working for all the public, might be held to stricter rules here, but private business needs to look after their own bottom line first and foremost.
And requiring policy changes based on a change of mind of one employee can easily result in all of their employees being out of work fairly shortly.

right, so back to my earlier point then. If Guinness believe their old policy of only employing Catholics to do manual work was good, they would be more than within their right to bring back that policy.

Yes or No.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

THe Law states that





No, you read the site, saw a bit that you liked, interpreted it your way and used that. It wasn't a proper reply.

The law states that


I even used the easy to read version in the hope that people might actually get it.

A Muslim woman would have trouble complying with the Dunnes uniform policy unless she can wear a head scarf. In order for Dunnes to stop her wearing a headscarf, they would have to show that not wearing one is a necessity for the job.

Is not wearing a headscarf a necessity for stacking shelves or operating a check out? I would be amazed if it were.

Dunnes were in breach of the Equality act.

Can someone translate this into Irish for me, in case the English version isn't sinking in properly.

Those sentences are not laws!! That is an abstract laymens leaflet on rights.

How would being Chinese be nessacery to work in a Chinese restaurant?

irishconvert

Ush1 wrote: »

Huh?

So if it's almost impossible for it to happen then why it is in there? Do you agree with it?

It's supposed to be a deterrant. I agree a few lashes is a good deterrant if it acts stops others from doing this and saves other wives/husbands and their children the pain of their family breaking up due to unfaithfulness.

Boombastic

@ Irishconvert


Just noticed in your sig that you are Islamic. I made this post earlier, it is a bit quoted from Discovering Islam. I'll quote the bit I'm interested in hearing your take on below

DiscoveringIslamThere is a verse in the Quran that says that God doesn't want Muslims to experience hardship (in any matter). Therefore, we can conclude that it may be permissible (God knows best) for Muslim women not to fulfill the full requirements of hijab if they live in circumstances under which wearing such hijab would make their lives very difficult, such as being subject to the possibility of physical harm, discrimination in the job market, inability to attend public schools/universities, etc. This can apply for Muslim women who live in countries where the majority of people are non-muslims as well as in countries where the majority of people are Muslims, but there is some hostility or discrimination against women who wear hijab. However, we should emphasize that even in such circumstances, Muslim women should dress modestly.

irishconvert

Boombastic wrote: »

@ Irishconvert


Just noticed in your sig that you are Islamic. I made this post earlier, it is a bit quoted from Discovering Islam. I'll quote the bit I'm interested in hearing your take on below


There is a verse in the Quran that says that God doesn't want Muslims to experience hardship (in any matter). Therefore, we can conclude that it may be permissible (God knows best) for Muslim women not to fulfill the full requirements of hijab if they live in circumstances under which wearing such hijab would make their lives very difficult, such as being subject to the possibility of physical harm, discrimination in the job market, inability to attend public schools/universities, etc. This can apply for Muslim women who live in countries where the majority of people are non-muslims as well as in countries where the majority of people are Muslims, but there is some hostility or discrimination against women who wear hijab. However, we should emphasize that even in such circumstances, Muslim women should dress modestly.

Which verse are you referring to?

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Those sentences are not laws!! That is an abstract laymens leaflet on rights.

How would being Chinese be nessacery to work in a Chinese restaurant?

The Equality Authority

About Us: The Role and Functions of the Equality Authority
The Equality Authority is an independent body set up under the Employment Equality Act 1998. It was established on 18th October 1999.

The Equality Authority replaced the Employment Equality Agency, and has a greatly expanded role and functions. The Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000 outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services and other opportunities to which the public generally have access on nine distinct grounds.

These are:

gender;
civil status;
family status;
age;
disability;
race;
sexual orientation;
religious belief; and
membership of the Traveller Community.


Discrimination is described in the Act as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is, has been or would be treated on any of the above grounds.

I would hardly call them Abstract or Laymen on this issue. They are, after all, the governing body on equality in Ireland.

Boombastic

irishconvert wrote: »

Which verse are you referring to?

You should know!! Only messing. The people referring to the verses there are DiscoveringIslam, not me. It doesn't say on their website what exact verses they are referring with a name like discover Islam I'm presuming they have read the Qur'an. I have linked to the website page. I'll put quote box in the previous post to clarify the bit by Discovering Islam.


Is it also a 'requirement' that thieves hand be cut off for stealing?

davet82

Boombastic wrote: »

A definition which can be interpreted in many ways




If we are to go on the word of the Qur'an, where is our public lashings// I'm free this afternoon and could do with some entertainment

[Al-Nur 21:4] The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

i'm not saying i agree with but thats their understanding of it not mine

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Equality Authority


I would hardly call them Abstract or Laymen on this issue. They are, after all, the governing body on equality in Ireland.

That document you linked to is called Your Employment Equality Rights Explained Easy to read version. It's obviously is in laymans terms and is very abstract. The language used is clearly not what courts would use.

It is not a legal document and is not law as it doesn't have references to the constitution.

And again, my question would be why would being Chinese be nessacery to work in a Chinese restaurant?(no legal document would have this type of thing in it)

davet82

Madam_X wrote: »

if a Tesco in the north forbid ash on staff's foreheads because it looks shabby, so be it.

owner of store thinks it looks shabby, employee honestly believes that a god and their church wants them to do this and would be deeply upset that they couldnt have ash on their forehead, who would you think it effects more?

i'm not saying let them do everything they want but common sense should apply, who is it hurting?

irishconvert

Boombastic wrote: »

You should know!! Only messing. The people referring to the verses there are DiscoveringIslam, not me. It doesn't say on their website what exact verses they are referring with a name like discover Islam I'm presuming they have read the Qur'an. I have linked to the website page. I'll put quote box in the previous post to clarify the bit by Discovering Islam.


Is it also a 'requirement' that thieves hand be cut off for stealing?

Let me first state I am not a scholar, or expert. However my understanding is that the hand cannot be cut if the person steals because they need the item, for example someone steals a loaf of bread because they have no money to pay for food. If someone steals just because they want something someone else has, then their hand would be cut off. Example would be the guy who breaks into your house to steal your laptop, the bankers who stole billions from the Irish people.

My understanding on the hardship question is that if there is genuine hardship which threathens one's life then they can go as far as to deny they are Muslim. But I don't think this case comes close to that situation.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

That document you linked to is called Your Employment Equality Rights Explained Easy to read version. It's obviously is in laymans terms and is very abstract. The language used is clearly not what courts would use.

It is not a legal document and is not law as it doesn't have references to the constitution.

And again, my question would be why would being Chinese be nessacery to work in a Chinese restaurant?(no legal document would have this type of thing in it)

Try this version then http://www.equality.ie/Files/Guide-to-the-Employment-Equality-Acts-1998-2008.pdf

Indirect discrimination happens where there is less favourable
treatment in effect or by impact. It happens where people are,
for example, refused employment or training not explicitly on
account of a discriminatory reason but because of a
provision, practice or requirement which they find hard to satisfy.
If the provision, practice or requirement puts people who
belong to one of the grounds covered by the Acts at a
particular disadvantage, then the employer will have indirectly
discriminated, unless the provision is objectively justified by
a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are
appropriate and necessary.

Os this one http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

What is discrimination?
Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. A person is said to be discriminated against if he or she is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the 9 grounds. To establish direct discrimination, a direct comparison must be made, for example, in the case of disability discrimination the comparison must be between a person who has a disability and another who has not, or between persons with different disabilities.

Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory.

And, here is the actual statute book wording http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/print.html#sec31

31.—(1) Where a provision (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) relating to employment—

(a) applies to all the employees or prospective employees of a particular employer who include C and D or, as the case may be, to a particular class of those employees or prospective employees which includes C and D,

(b) operates to the disadvantage of C, as compared with D, in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 8 (1),

(c) in practice can be complied with by a substantially smaller proportion of the employees or prospective employees having the same relevant characteristic as C when compared with the employees or prospective employees having the same relevant characteristic as D, and

(d) cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case,

then, subject to subsections (4) and (5), for the purposes of this Act the employer shall be regarded as discriminating against C, contrary to section 8 , on whichever of the discriminatory grounds gives rise to the relevant characteristics referred to in paragraph (c).

(2) Where a provision (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) relating to membership of a regulatory body—

(a) applies to all members or potential members or to a particular class of member or potential member which includes C and D,

(b) operates to the disadvantage of C, as compared with D, in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 8 (1),

(c) in practice can be complied with by a substantially smaller proportion of the members or potential members having the same relevant characteristic as C when compared with the members or potential members having the same relevant characteristic as D, and

(d) cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case,

then, subject to subsection (5), for the purposes of this Act the regulatory body shall be regarded as discriminating against C, contrary to section 13 , on whichever of the discriminatory grounds gives rise to the relevant characteristics referred to in paragraph (c).

(3) Subsection (1) shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to—

(a) the provision of any such services of an employment agency as are referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 11 (1),

(b) participation in any such course or facility as is referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12 (1).

(4) Subsection (3) of section 8 applies for the purposes of subsection (1) and, in so far as it relates to an employer, subsection (5) as it applies for the purposes of subsections (4) to (8) of that section.

(5) If a provision is such that, apart from this subsection, an employer or regulatory body would be regarded—

(a) by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), as discriminating against an individual on the marital status ground or the family status ground, and

(b) by virtue of section 22 , also as discriminating against the same individual on the gender ground,

the employer or regulatory body shall not be regarded as discriminating against that individual by virtue of subsection (1) or, as the case may be, subsection (2).

Penn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Equality Authority


I would hardly call them Abstract or Laymen on this issue. They are, after all, the governing body on equality in Ireland.

But the only thing on that list which was applicable was religious belief. They had no problem with the fact she was Muslim, and they were trying to keep her in the job. But they had an issue with the hijab not on religious grounds, but because they don't allow any headwear. Some Muslim women don't wear a hijab. Now regardless of whether people think they're right or wrong not to do so, if she did not wear a hijab, they wouldn't have had any problem.

Her religion was not a factor in their decision. The hijab was a factor, and the decision to wear the hijab was hers.

By not making exceptions for any religions, Dunnes are applying the same playing field for all employees. That's pretty much the opposite of discrimination. They are treating all their employees in the same way, and all are expected to comply with their (reasonable) uniform policy.

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Try this version then http://www.equality.ie/Files/Guide-to-the-Employment-Equality-Acts-1998-2008.pdf



Os this one http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

Yes, I've seen them and actually quoted from them regarding;

unless the provision is objectively justified by
a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are
appropriate and necessary.

In which case I said there is almost a built in get out clause as "aim" is an abstract description.

To further reinforce my point they actually point out that it may be nessacery to be Chinese to work in a Chinese restaurant(which is utterly ridiculous) which I would think is actual discrimination on race which is something not chosen or thought up, unlike religion.

Fratton Fred

Penn wrote: »

But the only thing on that list which was applicable was religious belief. They had no problem with the fact she was Muslim, and they were trying to keep her in the job. But they had an issue with the hijab not on religious grounds, but because they don't allow any headwear. Some Muslim women don't wear a hijab. Now regardless of whether people think they're right or wrong not to do so, if she did not wear a hijab, they wouldn't have had any problem.

Her religion was not a factor in their decision. The hijab was a factor, and the decision to wear the hijab was hers.

By not making exceptions for any religions, Dunnes are applying the same playing field for all employees. That's pretty much the opposite of discrimination. They are treating all their employees in the same way, and all are expected to comply with their (reasonable) uniform policy.

wearing the Hijab is a requirement for a Muslim women. Some choose to ignore it though.

Equality isn't about treating everyone the same, it is about treating them equally, which is slightly different. In this case, the banning of headwear meant that it indirectly discriminated against her, because her religious beliefs are that she should wear a Hijab.

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, I've seen them and actually quoted from them regarding;


In which case I said there is almost a built in get out clause as "aim" is an abstract description.

What is the aim?