Response to Eric V
I agree that the American companies have a right to put in place specific prohibitions or requirements when it comes to employing their staff. However, this must be in line with provisions availed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC was a product of the clamor for civil rights which characterized the American socio-political history for the longest time. However, with Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC established its legal foundation (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015) . In light of the Abercrombie &Fitch case, the look policy did not override the EEOC requirements. The company carried out blatant discrimination based on religion. Alluding to banning all types of headgear as the foundation for its policy, the company did not carry out due diligence in establishing the link between Elauf’s hijab and her Islamic religion.
It is true that the United States economic system is liberalized with much of the market dynamics determined by the prevailing supply and demand forces. However, in light of the civil rights and protection of minorities from systemic or corporal discrimination, the government has been compelled to step in and effect pertinent regulations. The government regulations as captured through the EEOC have been integral in fighting for the members of the public from the discriminatory powers wielded by institutions such as Abercrombie &Fitch. The headgear policy by the company, for instance, was a product of the liberalized market but through the government regulations, the policy was disallowed as it was discriminatory to Muslim women who don hijab as a religious symbol.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Response to Eduardo T
I do not agree with your claim that Abercrombie &Fitch’s policy should be accepted as part of the free-market economy. This is because despite the market being liberalized the government has the right to protect its citizens from possible discrimination and exploitation by the corporates. This is because the US constitution is always supreme in comparison to organizational decrees. The policies should take into consideration the prevailing legal ramifications. In many instances, there is a need for businesses to consult widely before arriving at policies such as those by Abercrombie & Fitch. This means that policies in the business world are fundamental, but they must be set in line with EEOC terms.
The Title VII under unlawful practices sec2000e-2.[Section 703] was not established as a punitive measure against companies (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015) . Nevertheless, to discriminate against individuals in the guise of business practice is not advisable. Discriminatory practices are unethical and cannot prevail over the civil rights. Virtue ethics do not define the actions of Abercrombie &Fitch stores in setting the look policy which discriminated against Elauf. Deontology perspective, however, supports Elauf’s allegiance to Islam. Her insistence on donning the hijab signals her obligation to the Islamic sharia that demands that women cover up their hair with the headgear (Spinoza &Elwes, 2016). Each person has his or her allegiance to a certain religion which has obligations. It was thus wrong for the company to seek to disenfranchise from her religious obligations through unfair policies.
References
Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. (2015, June 12). Supreme Court Sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch Hijab Case | Labor & Employment Law Blog . Retrieved from https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/06/articles/discrimination/supreme-court-sides-with-eeoc-in-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case/
Spinoza, B, & Elwes, R. H. (2016). The ethics . Floyd, VA: Dancing Unicorn Books.
