Muslim clerk sues Abercrombie and wins right to wear hijab at work

Court decision is a blow to private property rights…

A federal judge ruled that Abercrombie & Fitch violated federal anti-employment discrimination guidelines for firing a Muslim employee when she would not remove her headscarf for work. The clothing chain asserted that it was part of their business plan for their employees to have a certain look that coincides with their clothing line. Many stores have similar grooming policies, but Abercrombie was individually targeted and so it has now been victimized by the court system.

Umme-Hani Khan accepted the “look policy” which agreed to a no headgear when she was on the floor. Local supervisors initially did not react to her wearing a hijab during work until a district manager spotted her and complained to human resources. The company informed Khan that she would need to remove her headgear in order to continue employment. When she refused, she was fired and she immediately retaliated with a lawsuit.

From RNS.com

“All Americans have a right to reasonable religious accommodation in the workplace, and for Muslim women this includes the right to wear a hijab to work,” said Zahra Billoo, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which filed the lawsuit.

In its defense, Abercrombie argued that it was exercising its right to commercial free speech, and that an employee who wore a headscarf could hurt the store’s business, even though the company could not produce any evidence of economic harm.

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote that while Abercrombie requires employees to “represent the brand,” it cannot demand they be a “living advertisement,” and as part of her judgment ordered the retailer to revise its policies to prevent discrimination.

What about the right to free association?

Of course there is no “right” to wear anything at work. There will always be certain custom standards that employers can require for their workers to abide by in order to work at an establishment. It is no different from uniforms or ties that might be required for a staff at an establishment. Customers know and appreciate that when they go to a store that the employees may be wearing the clothing they intend to buy. It’s a very important part of a business plan to have customers interact with employees in a way that the employer demands. Employees have the right of free association. If they do not wish to work somewhere that a costume or uniform is required, they are not forced to.

The First Amendment right to freedom of religion only applies to the government, not on private property. A full understanding of property rights demands that business owners should be able to discriminate against who they allow to work at their establishment and what they wish them to wear. If a Christian man wished to wear a cross necklace and an employer thought it lost her business, he should have the right to ask her not to wear it. It’s not a religious freedom issue. If I asked someone not to wear jeans to my cocktail party, I have the right to deny them entry. It’s my private property. The same should apply for business owners.

Unfortunately this case is a huge blow to property rights and free enterprise which will set a bad precedent for the future.