The Fox News Cashin’ In regulars are not happy that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Abercrombie & Fitch had violated civil rights law when it decided against hiring a young Muslim woman wearing a head scarf.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Abercrombie & Fitch this week. Apparently host Eric Bolling has been stewing ever since,
Bolling wore a large flag pin to let us know what a patriot he is. Yet, he complained that Abercrombie & Fitch was “caving to the Supreme Court.”
Panelist Michelle Fields argued on behalf of discrimination. “They should be able to choose what image they project to the public. …If this woman was applying for a job at their factory where she wasn’t a brand ambassador, I would say sure, she should be able to wear her hijab. But if she is going to represent the company and be an image of the company, well, the company gets to decide what you wear, that’s how it works.”
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court gets to decide whether or not the company violated the law with its practices. THAT’S how it works.
“Did the Supreme Court screw this one up?” Bolling asked. Even though, not one panelist seemed to be a lawyer.
Democrat Jessica Tarlov, the lone supporter of the SCOTUS decision, said Abercrombie & Fitch has a right to hire whomever they want “but they don’t have a right to discriminate.” Unbelievably, everybody else seemed to disagree.
Bolling made the ludicrous argument that now people will claim that their sports attire is part of their religious beliefs.
BOLLING: There are a lot of people who have different feelings, have different emotions. Some would say ‘religious beliefs’ for - I don’t know, sports. Should they be able to wear a sports team uniform into Abercrombie and make sure Abercrombie makes sure they’re hired?”
But panelist Jonathan Hoenig took it a step further.
HOENIG: Why would anyone want to hire a full-time employee like this? I mean, employers are sitting ducks. …If it’s your business, you have the right to discriminate against how people talk, how people walk, it doesn’t matter.
Rather than object, Fields suggested that the job applicant deliberately set up the retailer.
FIELDS: Imagine if you go audition for a movie and you get it and then you say, “No, I can’t wear the costume because it goes against my religious beliefs. She knew what she was doing. She knew this was a “model” position. …She knew what Abercrombie was. They have basically naked people on their billboards.
Bolling helped promote this baseless accusation. “This may have been a setup,” he agreed, without looking for any evidence that it was so. “Why would a devout Muslim decide to go ahead and go for this job, other than maybe to see if they can catch them saying no and then bring it to the Supreme Court?”
“You’ve got to draw a line,” panelist Wayne Rogers said. “If it’s against our dress code, then you must not do it.”
Hoenig reiterated, “You did build that. It’s your business. You have the right to discriminate against whoever you want.”
Nobody but Tarlov disagreed.
Watch the Fox News brand of patriotism below, from the June 6 Cashin’ In.
Furthermore, even in “right-to-work” states, you cannot be fired at-will IF the employee feels they’ve been unfairly terminated. If an employee feels he or she has been terminated due to political, religious, racial or gender-related reasons, the employee can go to EEOC and file a complaint. It’s then on the employer to prove the termination was based on VALID reasons that don’t violate EEOC conditions.
And given A&F’s previous skirmishes with EEOC laws (where certain ethnic groups were passed over in hiring because they didn’t “fit” the company’s “cool image”), it’s obvious the company didn’t learn its lesson. Maybe now A&F has.
All I could deal with was Cavuto on Saturday so I missed Eric Bolling and his merry band of Fox News parakeets but it smells like their typical case of heads exploding over a small portion of carefully filtered facts.
When Scalia – no friend of liberals – declares a decision with the words “This is really easy" you know the rightest of the right-wing rights are being safeguarded. It’s preventing discrimination in hiring based upon religious beliefs. The next case could revolved around someone wearing a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt to a job interview and you know which side Roger Ailes’ minions will come down on that skirmish in the War on Christians.
Not to worry biz block fanboys and fangirls. I live in a right to work state and employers’ rights to fire anyone for just about any reason is still well protected.
Human Resources personnel are educationally trained on what they can and most importantly not say why someone is being rejected for employment if those reason have anything to do with the interviewers own prejudice.
They can say it to you but without having it writing it’s just hearsay. Your word against their word that they’ll deny was ever said. They can just say that you didn’t meet the qualifications for the job or they found someone better qualified than you were, or they were willing to take a lower salary than you. It happens all the time.
A woman who claims her devout Christian faith demands she must always wear dresses (no pantsuits, no slacks—dresses or skirts only) and she must never use makeup. But, because she “needs” the job and her minister has approved it, she goes to apply for a job at a local casino. When she makes it to the interview, she’s informed of the dress requirements for female employees—white blouse, company vest and black slacks AND she must wear a minimum amount of makeup—and she accepts the job.
But, on her first day at work, she comes in wearing the blouse and vest, but with a skirt, and she’s wearing absolutely NO makeup at all (not even so much as a colored chapstick). She’s sent home to change and told not to come back until she’s complied. When she comes back, she’s not changed nor has she applied any makeup. She does this several days in a row and the casino fires her. She then sues for “religious discrimination” and the company’s failure to “make concessions” for her “deeply-held religious beliefs.”
Alright, “Cashin’ In” regulars—discuss. Did the company have a “right to discriminate” or was the company “violating the woman’s religious freedoms?” Note: Courts have already upheld casinos’ rights to demand their female employees must wear makeup while on the job; conversely, the courts have also upheld the double standard by which male employees may NOT wear any makeup that is discernible, close up. Take that into consideration in your discussion. (For bonus points, replace “Christian” with any other faith including Jewish, Buddhist or Wiccan, and see if your opinion changes in the least.)