Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

LeeHoffmann

She's not disqualified from any of those jobs, her Hijab is.

if she sees her hijab the way most of us would see socks and underwear, then it´s unreasonable to ask her to take it off for no good reason

There's no reason at all why I couldn't wear jeans and flip-flops during work

I´m guessing you don´t wear jeans and flip flops every day and consider it immodest not to wear them? Not to mention (again) that flip flops are inappropriate because they´re casual wear (and also perhaps unhygienic), while a hijab is not casual attire

It is not discrimination because it is not singling out Muslims, its treating everybody equally

I´ve heard people saying that equality is about enabling people to make equal advantage of the opportunities available, rather than insisting that everybody be treated exactly the same regardless of their differences. That way of looking at things seems very relevant here.

she has decided that wearing a particular item of clothing is more important to her than a job.

if you weren´t allowed to wear a bra or underwear at work for that many jobs, would you still see it as choosing a particular item of clothing over a job? They wear the hijab every day, everywhere they go because it´s inextricably tied up with the notion of being modest. Maybe she feels ashamed without the hijab. Why should she be forced to feel that way just because her notion of modesty is different to yours?

davet82

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Not necessarily. You can settle a case without an admission of liability

but why do that if you are clearly within your rights?

i'm still on the fence on this one btw

TwoShedsJackson

davet82 wrote: »

ok i've heard great points from both sides about the rights and wrongs of it but from a legal point of view that Dunnes settled the case which i'm presuming came from their legal team, so is that not an admission that they got it wrong?

Probably more an admission that they can't be bothered dealing with it anymore and want her to get lost. I can't imagine the compensation was huge, so Dunnes weigh that versus the legal costs and if they're remotely similar will pay her off to get rid of her.

LeeHoffmann

it all depends on the dress code of the employer, doesn't it?

should it? I had never heard of that case but it´s equally ridiculous

Shenshen

davet82 wrote: »

ok i've heard great points from both sides about the rights and wrongs of it but from a legal point of view that Dunnes settled the case which i'm presuming came from their legal team, so is that not an admission that they got it wrong?

I wouldn't count on it.
Their legal team might well have done up a worst-scenario-cost combined, and combined with bad publicity that might have suggested the settlement as the cheaper and quicker option.

smash

davet82 wrote: »

ok i've heard great points from both sides about the rights and wrongs of it but from a legal point of view that Dunnes settled the case which i'm presuming came from their legal team, so is that not an admission that they got it wrong?

No, they just didn't want to drag a supposed religious discrimination case to court.

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

"Should" being the crucial term here, I think.
The lawyer very carefully doesn't say that any exceptions for religious reasons HAVE TO BE made, just that consideration SHOULD be given.

Would it have been nicer of Dunnes to try a compromise and get some sort of black-and-white patterned scarf for her? Of course it would have been.
Are they obliged to do so, legally? No.

When a lawyer says "Should" they actually mean "Must".

Korvanica

Shenshen wrote: »

Sperm donor?

She could still harvest the sperm and donate it....:pac:

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

I wouldn't count on it.
Their legal team might well have done up a worst-scenario-cost combined, and combined with bad publicity that might have suggested the settlement as the cheaper and quicker option.

There is also the way they dismissed her as well. If she was told "Take that off or go home and don't come back" then they don't have a leg to stand on.

Sacking people is actually very difficult unless they have done something very wrong.

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

if you weren´t allowed to wear a bra or underwear at work for that many jobs, would you still see it as choosing a particular item of clothing over a job?

If I accepted a job working for a strip club then took them to court for not letting me wear a bra then yes, it would be stupid.

They wear the hijab every day, everywhere they go because it´s inextricably tied up with the notion of being modest. Maybe she feels ashamed without the hijab. Why should she be forced to feel that way just because her notion of modesty is different to yours?

Nobody is forcing her to feel anything. She can wear a burqua if she wants as far as I am concerned, I don't care what she does on her own time.
But if an employer has a dress code she is violating, then it becomes a problem.

Shenshen

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I´m guessing you don´t wear jeans and flip flops every day and consider it immodest not to wear them? Not to mention (again) that flip flops are inappropriate because they´re casual wear (and also perhaps unhygienic), while a hijab is not casual attire

I would consider them far more hygienic than closed shoes, and I consider hygiene important to my daily life.

If required, I'm sure I can find some dressy flip-flops, black with sparkles or something.

And Dunnes dress code is not non-casual. It's uniform. So it's utterly irrelevant if a hijab is casual or not. It's not part of the uniform.

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When a lawyer says "Should" they actually mean "Must".

No. When I lawyer says "should", they mean "if possible" or "advisable in case something does come to court and the court thinks there was room for compromise".
When they mean "must", they say things like "obliged to".

CruelCoin

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/irishsun/irishsunnews/4643144/Hijab-or-her-job.html



Should they have settled? Would it bother you if somebody was serving you with a hijab on?

I dont really have a strong opinion on it either way but it interests me what people think

I'm a member of the Pastafarian Church (all praise be to his noodly goodness).
Does that mean I'd not be allowed to follow my religious beliefs and wear an eye-patch to work?

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is also the way they dismissed her as well. If she was told "Take that off or go home and don't come back" then they don't have a leg to stand on.

Sacking people is actually very difficult unless they have done something very wrong.

Reading a few different news sources on this, that's not what happened apparently.

"The tribunal heard that in October 2010 Ms Tavoraite met with store manager Bill Farrell and the human resources manager about wearing the hijab.

She explained that her religion involved covering her head with a hat or scarf while in public, including at work, but that she had been told that she could not wear the scarf to work.

Mr Farrell told Ms Tavoraite that her religion was her own business and her business only, adding that the uniform was their image as a company and she had to wear the standard uniform as required by the company.

There were numerous subsequent meetings, including disciplinary meetings, and correspondence between management at Dunnes Stores and Ms Tavoraite in an effort to resolve the impasse and the company repeatedly told Ms Tavoraite that they wanted her to return to work.

Ms Tavoraite never returned to work."

http://www.build.ie/national_news.asp?newsid=150585

Lyaiera

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm a member of the Pastafarian Church (all praise be to his noodly goodness).
Does that mean I'd not be allowed to follow my religious beliefs and wear an eye-patch to work?

I think some guy in America was allowed wear a colander in his driving license because he was Pastafarian.

Shenshen

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think some guy in America was allowed wear a colander in his driving license because he was Pastafarian.

Pics or this didn't happen.

LeeHoffmann

If I accepted a job working for a strip club then took them to court for not letting me wear a bra then yes, it would be stupid.

I never said anything about a strip club. If you wanted to work for Dunnes or in a bank but cultural norms dictated that you couldn´t wear a bra or underwear, would you see it as you choosing ´a particular item of clothing´ over a job?

If required, I'm sure I can find some dressy flip-flops, black with sparkles or something.
And Dunnes dress code is not non-casual. It's uniform. So it's utterly irrelevant if a hijab is casual or not. It's not part of the uniform.

my point was that jeans, flip flops, baseball caps and football jerseys are generally regarded as casual wear and therefore are generally regarded as inappropriate for work. I do not think this issue is about strictly conforming to the uniform (e.g. I´m sure there are people who work in Dunnes who wear jewellery that is not part of the uniform) - it´s about not strictly conforming to cultural norms. The hijab is becoming a symbol of ´alien culture´ in the western world.

Nobody is forcing her to feel anything.

so her feelings are completely irrelevant because they weren´t forced upon her? I think we should take account of peoples´ feelings within reason. I see absolutely no good reason to ban a hijab. Are we also going to ban scarves for employees in winter?

Kenny Logins

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think some guy in America was allowed wear a colander in his driving license because he was Pastafarian.

Shenshen wrote: »

Pics or this didn't happen.

Scroll up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81744227&postcount=73

smash

Shenshen wrote: »

Pics or this didn't happen.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01945/pasta_1945678c.jpg

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

No. When I lawyer says "should", they mean "if possible" or "advisable in case something does come to court and the court thinks there was room for compromise".
When they mean "must", they say things like "obliged to".

Should, or must. It does not say "May".

Dunnes did not look on this sympathetically. She was told to put up and shut up, or **** off, and lets face it, we have all met HR managers like that.

I would hazard a guess and say this was a lone HR or store manager, as I am pretty sure I have seen women wearing a Hijab to work in Dunnes before. If I am right, then this women has been quite clearly discriminated against, because Dunnes have already set a precedent.

Any employer insisting on this law is stupid anyway, why would they want to turn away an entore section of society who would make perfectly good employees.

Shenshen

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I never said anything about a strip club. If you wanted to work for Dunnes or in a bank but cultural norms dictated that you couldn´t wear a bra or underwear, would you see it as you choosing ´a particular item of clothing´ over a job?

If I had signed up for it, and after working there for a while changed my mind and decided that my religion now demands I wear underwear, I would indeed be choosing a particular item of clothing over a particular job.

my point was that jeans, flip flops, baseball caps and football jerseys are generally regarded as casual wear and therefore are generally regarded as inappropriate for work. I do not think this issue is about strictly conforming to the uniform (e.g. I´m sure there are people who work in Dunnes who wear jewellery that is not part of the uniform) - it´s about not strictly conforming to cultural norms. The hijab is becoming a symbol of ´alien culture´ in the western world.

Yes, some jewellery is permitted as part of the uniform. But I suspect that this is rather reglemented as well... I don't recall seeing a lot of people with facial piercings working in Dunnes.
Hair length, however, is regulated under the uniform policy, as are head coverings.

Again, it's Dunnes' choice what kind of uniform they want for their staff. And the lady did sign the contract saying she would wear the uniform as part of her job.

GLaDOS

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think some guy in America was allowed wear a colander in his driving license because he was Pastafarian.

Shenshen wrote: »

Pics or this didn't happen.

He was Austrian

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/niko-alm-pastafarian-colander_n_897700.html#s308409&title=Pastafarian_Niko_Alm

Religion compels this man to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head.

Niko Alm, a self-described "pastafarian," has been given the right to wear a colander on his head in his Austrian driver's license photo, according to the BBC.

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I never said anything about a strip club. If you wanted to work for Dunnes or in a bank but cultural norms dictated that you couldn´t wear a bra or underwear, would you see it as you choosing ´a particular item of clothing´ over a job?

No, but we are discussing jobs and particular items of clothing and I am explaining as a strip club is the most obvious place where a bra wouldn't be worn. Same thing. The answer is that I wouldn't ask for a job, agree not to wear one, then take them to court for not letting me wear one.

The hijab is becoming a symbol of ´alien culture´ in the western world.

Only by people who think private companies should be forced to change their uniform policies for them, after signing up to those policies under false pretenses.
None of us cares what she wears on her own time, as we have already said.

LeeHoffmann

If I had signed up for it, and after working there for a while changed my mind and decided that my religion now demands I wear underwear, I would indeed be choosing a particular item of clothing over a particular job.

Is this what happened? - i.e. did she go without the hijab and then just decide to wear it one day?

Regardless of the ins and outs of this particular case, I´m against banning the wearing of hijabs. IMO it amounts to discrimination and stems from prejudice

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Should, or must. It does not say "May".

Dunnes did not look on this sympathetically. She was told to put up and shut up, or **** off, and lets face it, we have all met HR managers like that.

I would hazard a guess and say this was a lone HR or store manager, as I am pretty sure I have seen women wearing a Hijab to work in Dunnes before. If I am right, then this women has been quite clearly discriminated against, because Dunnes have already set a precedent.

Any employer insisting on this law is stupid anyway, why would they want to turn away an entore section of society who would make perfectly good employees.

I think the term you're looking for is "shall".
"Should" means a person is "encouraged" to do something while "must" and "shall" mean they are required to do it.

I'm not denying they were acting like authoritarian d*cks.
But they were perfectly legally entitled to do so.

Shenshen

ScienceNerd wrote: »

He was Austrian

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/niko-alm-pastafarian-colander_n_897700.html#s308409&title=Pastafarian_Niko_Alm

Thanks for the links, guys!
I remember hearing about this now, I just love it!

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Is this what happened? - i.e. did she go without the hijab and then just decide to wear it one day?

That's my understanding from the quotes thus far. I can be corrected.

Regardless of the ins and outs of this particular case, I´m against banning the wearing of hijabs. IMO it amounts to discrimination and stems from prejudice

Nobody is banning the wearing of hijabs. Sensationalism isn't going to get us anywhere.
In one private company, there is a strict uniform code which has been enforced. That's all there is to it.

Would we agree that wearing one would be a compromise? Sure, it sounds like a good one. Should they as a private company be forced to make exceptions to their dress code for people who like wearing headscarves? No. That's discrimination against everyone else.

Kenny Logins

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Is this what happened? - i.e. did she go without the hijab and then just decide to wear it one day?

Regardless of the ins and outs of this particular case, I´m against banning the wearing of hijabs. IMO it amounts to discrimination and stems from prejudice

She started working for Dunnes in 2007 and later converted to Islam.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dunnes-told-muslim-worker-she-couldnt-wear-her-hijab-3227288.html

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

I think the term you're looking for is "shall".
"Should" means a person is "encouraged" to do something while "must" and "shall" mean they are required to do it.

I'm not denying they were acting like authoritarian d*cks.
But they were perfectly legally entitled to do so.

their actions would suggest otherwise.

coffee_cake

Kenny Logins wrote: »

She started working for Dunnes in 2007 and later converted to Islam.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dunnes-told-muslim-worker-she-couldnt-wear-her-hijab-3227288.html

Utterly ridiculous.