In March 2008, the 18-year-old female applied for a job stocking merchandise at the “Abercrombie Kids” store at the Great Mall in Milpitas, Calif. In accordance with her religious beliefs, she wore a colorful headscarf to her interview. According to the EEOC, the Abercrombie & Fitch manager asked if she was Muslim and required to wear a head scarf, then marked “not Abercrombie look” on the young woman’s interview form. The EEOC’s suit alleges that Abercrombie & Fitch refused to accommodate the applicant’s religious beliefs by granting an exception to its “Look Policy,” an internal dress code that includes a prohibition against head coverings.

“This was the first job I ever applied for, and I was excited about the idea of working for Abercrombie & Fitch,” said the job applicant. “I was into fashion, and wore skinny jeans and imported scarves that matched my outfits. The interview crushed me because I never imagined anyone in the Bay Area would reject me because of my head scarf. To this day, I can't walk into Abercrombie & Fitch stores. They didn't just miss out on a hard worker, they lost a customer.”

Laurie Young, regional attorney for the EEOC said, “Discrimination because of a person’s religion is illegal and will not be tolerated. While that should be clear by now to all employers, some of them sadly continue to ignore the law."

The lawsuit involved twelve employees and they will all share in the settlement amount. Theresa Hurtado was one of the employees and she was one of the driving forces behind filing the discrimination complaint with the EEOC. There seems to be more employers engaging in crazy conduct in the workplace. I believe some of this may have to do with the bad economy and a feeling that employees will put up with any behavior to keep their jobs. Good for these twelve employees.

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said, “Employees have a right to their own religious beliefs or no religious beliefs. Employees should never be subjected unwillingly to a supervisor’s religious views."

The age discrimination lawsuit claims Orkin discriminated during the hiring process against Thomas Kokezas, as well as a class of individuals based on their age, over 40, or religion, non-Mormon. The lawsuit alleges Orkin advertised on Craig’s List for a recruiter to assist in hiring LDS missionaries for seasonal employ­ment and stating that the summer position was great for returned missionaries, who tend to be in their 20s. Under the law such advertising is illegal because it shows a preference for a particular religion, and also a preference for younger workers.

“Employers must be vigilant in providing equal employment opportunities for all applicants regardless of their age or religion,” said EEOC Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill.

The HR manager reported Male's complaints to the general manager of the facility, and Male was fired within less than 72 hours. This type of behavior is so obvious and it is amazing that companies still believe they can get away with treating people this way. It is nice to see people stand up for their rights and not let companies operate in this fashion.

“No one should lose his job for alerting human resources to inappropriate workplace behavior,” said EEOC attorney Jim Sacher.

According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make reasonable accomodations for peoples religious beliefs and practices. In this case it would not have been difficult to allow Lawson to wear her scarf. The inflexibility of employers to make reasonable requests, will result in monetary settlements.

“This early settlement benefits everyone involved, especially Ms. Lawson, who can now put this episode behind her,” said Robert Dawkins, EEOC attorney.

It is amazing that a company would risk a lawsuit over something so small and petty. I am glad to see this woman stand up for herself and demand her rights. Hopefully, the company will learn a valuable lesson and not behave this way in the future. In Illinois, I see many companies act this way.

“The EEOC is pleased that Pollard chose to resolve the matter early and to take steps to ensure similar problems do not occur in the future.” said Robert Dawkins of the EEOC

According to the allegations in the lawsuit a Pace supervisor referred to Kaleemuddin as “terrorist,” “Taliban,” “Osama” and “Al-Qaeda.” Kaleemuddin complained to superiors about the harassment but nothing was done to stop it. Finally, Kaleemuddin was fired by the supervisor who was harassing him. Allegedly the same supervisor, as well as others in Pace management, regularly referred to African Americans as “n----s” and to Hispanics as “f-----g Mexicans.”

EEOC Attorney Jim Sacher said, “Employees have an absolute right to be free from discriminatory harassment in the workplace. The EEOC will vigorously challenge violations of this statutory right.”

Templeton informed his supervisors about his religious beliefs and his observance of neutrality on issues of war, including military efforts, but was reprimanded for not complying with the Friday dress code. It would not have taken much for the company to respect the religious beliefs of Templeton and tell him it was okay not to wear the red shirt. The company is in business to make money not to tell people what they should support. Templeton was fired shortly after he refused to wear the red shirt. Firing him is regarded as retaliation.

“This is a positive outcome for all parties involved, and it is our hope that the company will be successful going forward as a result of the changes called for in this settlement agreement,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard.

This type of behavior may seem childish and may have been motivated by a herd mentality but it is illegal and dangerous. It is too bad that people have to be so cruel and malicious toward their fellow workers. The real troubling portion of this case is that management took part in the harassment.

“What happened to these workers was cruel and callous, involving physical mistreatment, as well as hateful religious slurs and anti-Semitic symbols” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

In this case instead of making the reasonable accomondation UPS fired him. During new hire orientation as a driver for UPS management told Bynoe he had to shave his beard and cut his hair in accordance with the company’s grooming policy. Bynoe replied that his religious beliefs prohibit him from cutting his hair or shaving his beard. Bynoe again advised the human resources manager about his religious beliefs and asked for a reasonable accommodation on the following day but UPS fired him. This is also a form of retaliation because Bynoe asked not to be discriminated against and he was fired.

“Our freedom to practice our religious beliefs is a fundamental right in this country,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC

It is always very important to remember that there are very strict time limits to filing a charge of discrimination. You must not procrastonate and let too much time slip away. In some instances an employer may drag out the internal investigation so that by the time you receive the internal findings of the company, more than 180 days has passed and you can't file a charge with the IDHR.

Based on court documents after Kerr refused to give a donation and complained that the demand for a donation conflicted with his religious beliefs, New Community Corporation removed him from its work schedule, which is retaliation. Retaliation occurs when you complain of discriminatory conduct and you receive negative treatment as a result of the complaint. Kerr ultimately filed a complaint with the EEOC and the corporation retaliated against him when he did file with the EEOC by firing him and then filing an improper complaint about him with his full-time employer alleging that he had engaged in misconduct at New Community Corporation.

“The EEOC will vigorously enforce the law to end such discriminatory practices. An employer, even one that engages in charitable work, cannot subject an employee to religious discrimination or retaliation.” said EEOC Attorney Louis Graziano

Court documents claim Ivy Hall insisted that as a condition of her continued employment, Ahdaoui remove and refrain from wearing her hijab on the job. When she refused, she was terminated. What is alleged is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make an effort to accommodate employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The accommodation is this case was very minor and Ivy Halls response to the accommodation was insensitive.

“Title VII protects employees from having to make the choice Ms. Ahdaoui was forced to make between her religious beliefs and her employment,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

Mesaba Airlines had a policy whereby employees could not request a shift change even if they made arranagements with other employees and made the arrangements well in advanace of the schedule change. The no shift swap policy conflicted with Title VII, which requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee whose religious belief conflicts with a work requirement. This only except is if the accommodation creates an undue hardship on the employer. As a result of this lawsuit Mesaba Airlines no longer has the policy. The EEOC claimed the policy was a form of discrimination.

“Employees should not be forced to choose between practicing their faith and keeping or getting a job,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “As this suit shows, the EEOC vigorously enforces Title VII’s protection against religious discrimination.”