Alamo Rent A Car, one of the largest rental car agencies in the United States, recently got smacked down for blatant anti-Muslim discrimination [via DNSI]. In essence, Alamo tried to claim that it was OK to discriminate on the basis of religion to pander to the anti-Muslim bigotry of post 9-11 customers. This case was so clear cut an example of discrimination that the court didn’t even put the case to the jury.
 |
|
Alamo meets its waterloo pandering to predjudice |
<
p>Bilan Nur was hired by Alamo in 1999. With Alamo’s permission, she wore a head scarf during Ramadan of 1999 and 2000. However, after September 11th, Alamo said that wearing a scarf was against their dress code. Nur even offered to wear an Alamo scarf, but that that compromise was refused. In the end, she was fired.
<
p>
According to the EEOC, here’s how the law works:
… the law allows employers to avoid accommodating [religious] requests if they can show undue hardship. And that has been defined in law to include financial considerations other than insignificant amounts. But … a company that argues it will lose customers because of its workers’ religious garb will lose in court — even if it could conceivably show some monetary harm ….the exception in the law does not apply to the discriminatory preferences of customers. [Link]
In this case:
the company’s regional manager admitted under questioning that the only hardship Alamo might suffer is the image that the firm has with customers. [Link]
And therefore,
The judge rejected a series of arguments by the company, including its contention that allowing her to wear the scarf — a clear sign of her religion in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks — would cause the firm undue hardship. [Link]
What appals me about this case is that
Alamo disciplined, suspended and terminated her employment following consultation with regional level human resources officials and in-house counsel. [Link]
This was not some irrational gut decision by a low level manager acting alone. This was a corporate decision – they seem to have felt a need to pander and furthermore, they seem to have believed that the courts would back their bigotry up. I’m glad to see that they were wrong, at least on the second point.
By the way this is very common in the more liberal states in the middle east, UAE, Dubai, Bahrain etc. Outward appearances are extremely “conservative” during the month of Ramadan far more then any other time of the year.
I see Jamaicans in NY doing it too
Back in the 90’s, there were prominent cases in NY of Caribbean entrepreneurs being pushed around by the MTA. Feeling that their neighborhoods were being underserved by subways and buses, a number of guys got together, pooled their money, and bought some used vans. They would use the vans to provide door to door service for a flat fee – which was particularly attractive to those workers on the night-shift, when buses don’t run and subways are iffy. The MTA bullied them, as they targeted their main group of customers – poor or working class commuters. With images of union voters dancing in their heads, the city council favored the MTA. I think the Caribbeans tried to appeal, but I don’t remember if anything came of it.
All hail the free market! I forgot, that the free market corrects against discrimination, because a profit minded firm will always make a profit minded decision. And, externalities such as race, creed, sexual orientation would never factor into the profit making process. But, then I am confused, why would people with afrocentric names face discrimination in the hiring process as described in this article, it couldn’t be because they were black, would it?
Ok. I’ll drop the sarcasm now. Some people like Manju or Moor Nam may rejoice, at the possibility of someone who faces discrimination by a firm, and that results in a rival firm being created that does not adhere to such discrimination, and possibly whopping the other firms ass with profits. Yes, that is cool, big-up ethnic business! But, that to me is a reactionary solution, still allowing for discrimination to occur at the original firm, and if the person in question does not have the financial resources to start up a rival firm, well then poor you, and you get stuck having to deal with such discrimination.
That to me is not a satisfactory solution. A business that practices blatant discrimination, is wrong, and should not be allowed to have such practices.
And, by the by, a quick glance at Forbes list of the richest American, top-paid Ceo’s etc, shows the names to be dominantly “white”.
Actually the subway lines have NOT changed so that wasn’t the issue. The bus lines did serve the communities but they were part of a two fare zone. The MTA was losing $$ on their bus routes served by the $1.00 vans. It created the one fare zone to put an end to the $1.00 van. The vans served communities outside of the subway zone with transportation to the subway. It was cheaper then taking a bus thru the two fare zone. The minute it turned into a one fare zone, bus to train and vice versa free transfer possible, the $1.00 vans were put out of business. Then the city made it illegal for the vans to exist on the bus routes.
BTW the vans were unregulated, uninsured and proved to be dangerous to many customers during that period. I used to work with someone who was robbed and then stabbed in the shoulder by the $1.00 van guy who picked her up.
Then the city made it illegal for the vans to exist on the bus routes.
BTW the vans were unregulated, uninsured and proved to be dangerous to many customers during that period. I used to work with someone who was robbed and then stabbed in the shoulder by the $1.00 van guy who picked her up.
But is the answer to put them out of business? Wouldn’t it have been more market-friendly to require them to have insurance, undergo inspections and background checks? IMO simply making them illegal was not in the interests of commuters.
KXB:
I remember that too. It was very sad, especially since very few in the minority rights camp came in to defend them. Free market solutions only work in a, well, free market. But the Jamaicans didn’t wallow in their victimization. Many of them still own limo companies and went on to other businesses. (I started my career as a stockbroker so I knew a few of them.)
SP:
I probobly would advocate using the situations you describe to compete against the discriminators. It has been done, as I detailed on my wall street posts. But look, at the end of the day, I understand the need for anti-discrimination laws especiallly vis-a-vis the legacy of slavery. I just don’t think relying on them will take us too far. We should not put ourselves in a position where we ask “whitey” to accept us, to put it in black power terms. Under the surface, there is a growing conciousness in the black community that their reliance on these laws haven’t helped. Malcolm X’s rep has only grown, while MLK’s has declined in relation (though he’s still honored). Of course, the racist NOI is the wrong messenger for this, but I think the argument is really picking up steam in the black community.
You can be a legal livery cab doing the exact same business, acquire licenses and insurance and appropriate documentation. There are 100s of livery cabs that operate in Jamaica. The $1.00 vans were illegal and dangerous (there were bad accidents, an old woman was dragged several blocks while her clothes were stuck in the door etc etc) and hence were put out of business.
This is virtually never true in the USA. There are many different ways to get capital for good ideas. And one does not always have to start their own firm, there is the possibility of going to a competitior. Many industries have a very low barrier to entry. I know guys who have started wall street firms on the back of their credit cards. The market is your friend if you know how to use it.
I know guys who have started wall street firms on the back of their credit cards.
That’s how actor Robert Townsend financed “Hollywood Shuffle”
BTW, one of the Venture Capitalists I referenced in my earlier posts, Vinod Khosla, is doing something very interesting with his $$$; providing micro-loans to poor villagers in India. These loans have allowed many (mostly women it turns out) to start their own business.
I think this has a lot of relevance to our discussion, if you think obout it.
(Ok I’m kinda over the place with this one – but for what it’s worth!)
Manju – I come at this from perhaps a different place than you. Free enterprise and “markets” have made little difference in the racially prejudiced way business has been conducted in the Middle East over the last fifty years. External pressures, rather than anything to do with the the market, have brought about a few welcome changes. Asians in the Middle East live well, but that does not compensate for their second class status in the country – don’t try to rock the boat too much and we’ll let you play in peace. I don’t know what kind of solution the omnipotent market has or can provide for that.
At its root, I doubt that this is really about brown vs. white, scarf vs. hair. There are other factors at play here. I mean, even among those minority groups there are the haves and have nots. If you have the education and qualifications of a Vinod Khosla, you might be able to respond to a prejudiced business environment by going out on your own and becoming a epoch changing success. How this is even conceivable for people without those advantages is beyond me.
In my own city (Calgary) there is a large EPC firm which employs a large number of engineers from India and China and it’s a well known fact that despite the considerable resources and expertise in this firm, it is operating well below its capacity because oil companies actually prefer doing business with other firms. I’ll leave it to you to draw the conclusion as to why this is. The banks which finance much of this growth are still largely WASP and remain so despite the disproportionate numbers of students of Asian origin that have been graduating from the local University’s business faculty every year. In response, Asians have established their presence by congregating into a small but insignificant firm — just don’t try to rock the boat and we’ll let you play. Talk to the small time oil and gas entrepeneurs in this city – they’ll tell you how “easy” it is to do business in the oil patch here as a visible minority.
When I spoke about your example being an oversimplification, I wasn’t disputing the fact that Goldman and Salomon made history by going on to dominate the Street. No – I mean that the version that’s being presented in this way emphasizes individual success while turning a blind eye to the other factors that have contributed to that success. Applied to the Indian case, it ignores the fact that the current tech fortunes are largely a product of government subsidised higher education in India.
“Applied to the Indian case, it ignores the fact that the current tech fortunes are largely a product of government subsidised higher education in India.”
Hmm! the above statement is also an oversimplification.
It can also be argued that the IT industry prospered in India because the government saw no benefit in interfering with the industry and killing it with their myopic ideas of compassion and “Garibi Hatao” (“Remove Poverty”) slogans so close to the heart of the leftists. This happened because the government “babus” did not have the foresight that IT can become so big for the Indians. Yes, some of the brains responsible for the IT industry of India were educated by the GoI in the IISc, IITs, NITs, and the IIITs. However, to attribute the success of the IT sector to this one contribution by the government is a bit of a stretch. Moreover, in south India (the hub of IT industry) it is the private engineering colleges that have provided the main source of workers.
Anindo – true enough, private engineering colleges have played a role. As did small private enterprise in Bangalore. However, there’s no denying the massive (and I would say greater) contribution of government funded institutions — both educational and professional (ISRO) in this success story.
Another factor to consider is that the technocrat-glorifying culture of the country was also largely a product of state run industries – if you wanted stability and privilige in the old days, you aspired to be an engineer working for a PSU.
Badmash:
Interesting response. I canÂ’t explain the Canada situation, although IÂ’ve heard these sentiments from professional investors in Canada many times. It just doesnÂ’t seem to be that dynamic a marketplace and the old boy network still survives. I do know that the government offers a lot a financing that this has killed the private venture capital market in Canada, especially in biotech. The Canadian VC firms I know invest almost exclusively in the US, but there could be others I donÂ’t know of.
The Middle East situation is more obvious. This part of the world is just not that free on all levels and thatÂ’s the kind of environment in which the ol boy network strives. I donÂ’t disagree with you about the role of government financed education in producing people like Khosla and I donÂ’t mean to imply that growth can only be attributed to private enterprise. Reality is a compromise and we must also concede that we donÂ’t know what type of educational institutions and private scholarships would have been created if India had allowed for more economic freedom.
But I think its important to note that successful entrepreneurs are usually distinguished by their industriousness, not brilliance. Even the small business owner can make a small fortune in our society. But in general, I donÂ’t disagree w/ your sentiments.
Mad props to Manju. I really wish more desis had the kind of self respect as evidenced in her (his?) posts.
Thanks for the kind words, seven times six. And I am male. A few people have called me “she” in the past and I haven’t corrected them so I guess I’ve been something of an on-line drag queen. I didn’t think my gender was relevent, but I decided it was time to out myself.
I’m glad you used the phrase “self-respect.” This is the crux of the matter. I mean, if you’re discriminated against in the work place I won’t begrudge you if you file a lawsuit; that’s the law and you’re entitled, no matter if the law violates property rights or not, but to stay and work for that employer? Please. Have some self-respect. If you can’t start you’re own business then go sell insurance, work on commision and make more $$$. In this conutry at least, there are ALWAYS alternatives.
This is just simply not true. Race, national origin, citizenship status, language proficiency, religion, class, income, and other things are not discrete, but tend to have a lot of interplay. When Alamo threatens to fire a worker if they don’t adhere to certain norms, that’s not just discriminatory–it’s also a way of disciplining their workforce. And when the worker doesn’t quit, it’s probably not a lack of self-respect as much as a need to pay rent and eat and meet other needs which are only obtainable through income. Unless, of course, the person has been through similar situations continuously and learned to adjust to some of the terrible things about the world and thereby lost some respect for themselves in the process 😉
Vikram:
Well, it depends on what u mean by ‘public interest’, coz the media obviously reported on it and I imagine there were discussions of this incident in the public sphere. Having said that, I think it’s perfectly legitimate if political scrutiny is directed towards incidents which impinge on a scapegoated minority, ie. Muslims in the post 9/11 context. After all, it is Muslims who have been overwhelmingly subjected to racial profiling, random acts of violence, social and professional discrimination, media hysteria, ridicule and stereotyping. So if you mean to suggest that there is some unfair bias in reporting this incident, then you’re off track.
Also, the article cited doesn’t quite work, as many people have pointed out. The issue at hand is about the expression of religious identity ie. wearing a turban, wearing a scarf, wearing a cross etc. Eating pork isn’t exactly a form of religious expression. I don’t exactly think of everyone eating a BLT sandwich as Catholic. If they wear a cross, yes, I would think “Christian” at least.
Anyway, great article! Thanks for the heads-up on this.
Ok, so if you were fired for eating “smelly Indian curry” at your place of work that would be fine it looks, since it has nothing to do with religion.
Vikram:
No, it would not be okay. I never said the case you pointed to was non-discriminatory. Morales has a case, just not on the basis of religious discrimination, which is why the example doesn’t exactly work as a parallel. It’s stupid to pit religion against religion, when that’s clearly not the case here. ie. Christianity versus Islam.
You could conceivably argue that a minority religion was imposing its values on the majority culture. It makes more sense to say that eating pork is a cultural value. That would be an interesting interpretation of Title VII indeed.
The bottom line that “religious discrimination” and “discrimation” in general is whatever the government and the prevailing legal system define it to be. You could say that polygamy has religious and social approval and sanction in some religions/cultures. But they are not allowed to (legally) practice that aspect of their religion/culture here in the US by law. So it is a case of the government “imposing” their moral/religious/civil rules on a minority religious group that follows such a system. And nobody screams “religious/cultural discrimination” .
Vikram:
Again, if you are attempting to draw a parallel to this case, it doesn’t work. Polygamy is outlawed because it is considered to disadvantage women since it has traditionally been restricted to men. Thus, the ‘harm principle’ would apply here in terms protecting women rights. Thus, an imposition on religious freedom is considered legitimate if the practice is likely to incur harm to an individual, or a group of individuals. You can’t really argue that in the case at hand. Wearing a scarf, by choice, during the month of Ramadan is not harming the individual who chose to wear it, or others around her.
Note that harm cannot be interpreted as offending a racist person’s sensibilies.
Also, you would have to argue very convincingly that profit loss was a serious ‘harm’ for it to trump religious freedom. Obviously it wasn’t. Not surprising. It’s nice to know that the laws of the land are being rightfully upheld.
So all the women in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are in a polygamous union are being “harmed” ? Now isn’t that a bigoted view in itself ? You are imposing your view of what is “acceptable” in terms of marital unions. There are several functioning societies where various forms of unions both polygamous and polyandrous, are perfectly acceptable and productive. So when you come down to it, it is actually a matter of what you define discrimination to be, based on your background and society. And you are comfortable in the thought that you are not racist. To give an over the top counter example to the scarf story, what would you say if a Digamber Jain monk was fired from Alamo for practicing the clothing codes of his faith ? 😉
<
blockquote>Ok, so if you were fired for eating “smelly Indian curry” at your place of work that would be fine it looks, since it has nothing to do with religion.
When i have leftovers, my co workers always seem to LOVEE the smell and ask me how do i cook it?
Vikram:
Actually, I wasn’t imposing my view on anyone. I was trying to explain the nuances of the legal system. But since you brought it up, I don’t really think polygamous unions are inherently oppressive. However, enough coercive situations have happened for the State to outlaw the practice. Mostly, I am still unconvinced, but let’s not argue about polygamy.
My point more generally was, given the history of law-making in this country ie. ‘background and society’, religious freedom can only be restricted on legitimate grounds. And yes, it is a matter of how you define discrimination, and generally religious discrimination without sufficient ground against ANY group is still considered discrimination in the United States. Now if you mean to say that this is subjective or unique to the United States, you should know better, it’s not. Religious Freedom is a fundamental part of most constitutions (not all).
So your Monk example, why don’t you do some legal thinking and see whether there might be grounds for discrimination? I’ve laid it down for you, all u gotta do now is think it through.
Once again, who is defines a “religion” ? That itself is up for debate. Jim Jones and David Korresh claimed to be following a religion. The Heaven’s Gate members also claimed to be following a religion. What seems to be a cult to you could be a religion to others. The right to bear arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right (in the US atleast). But you will see many private (and government) institutions explicitly prohibiting the carrying a gun on their premises. So just because something is “constitutionally guaranteed” doesn’t mean that even the government will allow a citizen to exercise that right in all contexts.
Law is ever-changing and accomodates new definitions. Fortunately, we are not always working in quick sand, as you seem to be suggesting. There are some stable definitions upon which laws can take effect. So for instance, Islam is not a cult, but a religion. So the criteria of ‘religious freedom’ applies. And hey, it’s a free country, if Jones and Koresh want to argue that they are a religious group, they very well can.
Your gun example follows the polygamy example. And you can argue from a relativist point all you like, but if we were relativists in practice, the idea of a justice system itself would be redundant.
Thank you for being such a respectful debater! It’s been fun.
Cheers,
a.
Your Blog is very nice and i appreciate that you have exploring the knowledge. see also my website.
BlogsBasket.Com – Create Unlimited Blogs Create your own blog and let us promote your post. We arranged blogs and its categories for you to submit post the the releavent blog and its category. http://www.blogsbasket.com