Hollister fires Muslim woman for wearing head scarf at work
Hani Khan, 19, was fired from the San Mateo Hollister a week after a district manager visited the store, called her into a meeting and said she wasn't supposed to wear the scarf while at work. She's filed a complaint. (San Francisco Chronicle)
The Bay Area is so open-minded and accepting of everybody?
That should be the joke of the day!
Posted by: MidtownCoog | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 09:45 AM
Toss up between Stores' right to hire for brand image on the retail floor and the utter stupidity of the Public for "Buying" into the Marketing ploys of Madison Ave. and corporate branding...Period.
Posted by: Krash | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 09:56 AM
She should write an email to her former employer telling them to go F___ themselves.
Posted by: pms | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 09:56 AM
I HATE "Consumerism".
Posted by: Krash | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 09:57 AM
If your faith is dependent on headwear, perhaps it bears examination.
Posted by: Emperor Norton the 1st | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Strqange3 that she was hired while wearing it and later, fired for wearing it.
I know a hell of a lot of women who constantly act as if they're on the rag butt, this time, the rag is on the woman.
Posted by: American Veteran | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:19 AM
As far as the girl knew, she was complying with the store's image. The store manager hired her while she was wearing a hijab and told her which colors it should be for the "Hollister" look (which she was happy to comply with). Then the assdouche regional manager sails in, bitches about the headscarf and tells her to take it off, then fires the girl for sticking to her religious guns.
The only way to get big corporations to behave is to hit them where it hurts: in the pocketbook. She's more than entitled to fire an EEOC suit over this incident and I hope she wins a nice, fat settlement from Hollister.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:35 AM
If your faith is dependent on headwear, perhaps it bears examination.
Posted by: Emperor Norton the 1st | Feb 25, 2010 10:19:27 AM
Thank you Emp du Nort!
Dead nuts.
Old nautical expression for 'exactly'.
Posted by: thomas | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:20 AM
If your faith is dependent on headwear, perhaps it bears examination.
Posted by: Emperor Norton the 1st | Feb 25, 2010 10:19:27 AM
Thank you Emp du Nort!
Dead nuts.
Old nautical expression for 'exactly'.
Posted by: thomas | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:21 AM
While I am all for religious freedom, I don't feel that I should have to look at someones religious "dress" while they are suppose to be at work. Can other employees wear a cross or Star of David on the outside of their uniform? If not then a hijab shouldn't be allowed either. Its called equal rights.
Posted by: me2 | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Not one but two ads are now coming up for the International Muslim matrimonial site! Wonder if the ads are selected by keywords in the posts?
Posted by: Phranqlin | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:51 AM
If your faith is dependent on cutting the tip of your penis off, perhaps it bears examination. But seriously, I assure you wearing a cross or star of david is, if not in the rules, very common (the cross at least) at Hollister, Abercrombie, etc. The issue is, many Americans dislike (or are frightened by) sand people, therefore it is socially acceptable to make up our own rules for dealing with them. It's the American way!
Posted by: Adam | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Well, Snortin' Norton sure hit that one in the "Bullseye".
But let's not forget our native passions for religion that offers quasi-cannibalistic ritual as part of the weekly "Passion Play".
Body and Blood of you know who....
Posted by: Krash | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 12:41 PM
@thomas - I'm either not old enough or not nautical enough or both. I've never heard that expression.
Posted by: Navy Chief | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Abercrombie & Fitch have made the news for racist fashion and behavior many times in the past. Why hasn't someone sued their a$$e$ off yet?
They're already morally bankrupt.
Posted by: Lambiepie | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM
me2;
You can wear anything you want,,,as long as it isn't pastries.
Krash;
What is it that you don't understand about the teachings of Jesus? Documentation of existence? Rome? ( I dislike them much), or the whole idea that we evolved from swamp slime or star stuff?
Have you seen the latest Hubble photos?
"Oh you are so huge".
Makes me more than wonder,,Eh?
Posted by: thomas | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Navy Chief;
Should have been more explicit.
It's a boatbuilder's term to express the often unusual surprise of having meausurements work out perfectly.
Don't know the origin, but love the anology.
I'll search. Regards!
Posted by: thomas | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 01:07 PM
should've been a cowboy
Posted by: buddy | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 01:39 PM
As long as we're classifying people by what article of clothing they put on what part of their party I would like to state for the record that the preponderance of people I see wearing Hollister clothing are, at best, tools.
I doubt any American company would have the balls to fire someone for wearing a Yarmulke.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 01:48 PM
If people are allowed to diverge from company policy or accepted community standards based on their religious beliefs, then what is to stop me from making up a religion of my own and claiming that its dictates demand that I abstain from work, go naked in public, take illegal drugs, and/or defecate in the streets. This is something I truly don't understand. Everybody wants to make allowances for others based on their beliefs, but the fact is their beliefs are nonsense. Let's all skip work tomorrow for the Feast of Maximum Occupancy!
Posted by: wank | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 01:59 PM
I'm with you wank,,,already took last month off.
Send food!
Posted by: thomas | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 02:06 PM
Any faith that causes you to act compulsively or out of coercion should be subject to 'WTF?' by the user. Replace 'faith' with 'states' and the truth remains.
Posted by: Emperor Norton the 1st | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 02:29 PM
" people are allowed to diverge from company policy or accepted community standards based on their religious beliefs, then what is to stop me from making up a religion of my own "
And find a billion people to adhere to its core tenants and there you have it.
Wearing a head scarf is not analagous to defecating in the streets, take illegal drugs, etc. As if I even had to say it.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 02:44 PM
I dunno. I get tired of looking at little gold crosses hanging from the necks of people who prove themselves complete a$$holes. So I guess it is "equal rights."
Posted by: NitroPress | Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 05:09 PM
I can't wear blue jeans and tennis shoes to work...do I have a case?
Posted by: jojo | Friday, February 26, 2010 at 08:13 AM
@NP - Christians aren't perfect (not even close), just forgiven. /flame suit on
Posted by: Navy Chief | Friday, February 26, 2010 at 08:53 AM
Not sure if California is a right to work state or not, but if so they can let her go if she doesn't comply with their rules.
Posted by: Boba Fett | Friday, February 26, 2010 at 09:09 AM
I am curious, but, as I understand it, wearing a head-covering is not actually a Koranic command, but rather a cultural thing that began amongst the Arabs. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by: johnjohn | Friday, February 26, 2010 at 09:18 AM
Has anyone been fired for coming to work one Wednesday of each year with a big smudge of ash on their forehead?
Posted by: Iowa Bumpkin | Friday, February 26, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Best blog post title of the year.Great comments all around. I like how there are a variety voices coming through.
Posted by: Nike Shox R4 | Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 07:56 AM
Hollister just hires people who are model quality, what happened to equal rights? If that girl got hired, she must of been pretty to look at, so who cares is her hair is not showing. The owner of hollister is probably ugly, that's why!
Posted by: AFS | Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 05:14 AM