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.
Am curious as to what the “desi” angle to this story is, given that the woman is Somali. Last I checked that country was in Africa.
This was discrimination based on religion, not national origin, so the fact that she was Somali isn’t really relevant. In general, we like to cover stories pertaining to religious freedom or civil liberties that might be pertitent to desis.
Arizona Federal District Court Judge Roslyn Silver was appointed by that liberal commie Clinton. If the Judge was a God fearing, fag hating Christian appointed by Bush (Sr. or Jr.)the Judge would have probably approved a summary judgment motion from Alamo 😉
On a serious note, Conservative Judges are the biggest threat to Title VII since the failed Senate filibuster to stop the enactment of Title VII in the 60s. There are Conservative Judges who have NEVER seen a meritorious Title VII action and will almost never ever let such cases go to a Jury. For those who have ever attended a meeting of the Federalist Society, this should come as no surprise. These people are fundamentally opposed to Title VII and see it as eroding the employment at will doctrine.
The Bush Administration is also strong arming the EEOC to stop these cases from going to Court and to go for arbitration where ridiculous awards are given to plaintiffs. of course they have also cut funding for the EEOC (surprise!)
Here’s your desi angle: replace “headscarf” with “turban”, something two out of our seven permanent bloggers wear. To quote Kirsty MacColl, “it’s not that far.”
Or even without – we have readers who wear headscarves and other readers who have friends and family who wear headscarves and yet others who are sympathetic to and interested in the plight of headscarf wearers in America. Plenty of desis are muslim, therefore we post on muslim issues.
Al M, any guesses as to how many comments until somebody defends Alamo? We should start a betting pool 😉
Thanks for that clarification… Then this story from might be of interest to Indian Catholics in America:
Oddly it didn’t seem to garner much public interest…
Ennis & AL M, I’ve noticed comments like this popping up more often, as if people who take positions opposite to yours are so beyond the pale that you can’t even fathom them.
Nonetheless, allow me to take a stab. I think the “defense” of Alamo would be along the lines of property rights, that we may disgree with what they are doing but defend their right to do it.
I noticed that AL M is affiliated w/ the ACLU so he must be familiar w/ this line of thinking. Recall the Nazis marching in Skokie case…this did not make the ACLU Nazi sympatizers.
And of course, we need not resort to government force, ie imposing our morality on others, to resolve this problem. We could always boycott Alamo. We have much more power than meets the eye.
Thanks for that clarification… Then this story from might be of interest to Indian Catholics in America
This would only be of interest to American Catholics if eating pork in the lunch room was mandated by the tenets of Catholicism. The woman had no right to eat pork. I am not sure about Florida but in most states, you can fire your employee for a good reason, bad reason or no reason. The only exception is that you cannot fire someone for a reason which is discriminatory and you are a member of that protected class (religion, color, national origin, sex)
I noticed that AL M is affiliated w/ the ACLU so he must be familiar w/ this line of thinking.
I am not affiliated with the ACLU.
Al M, any guesses as to how many comments until somebody defends Alamo? We should start a betting pool 😉
Here you go:
Is wearing a headscarf mandated by Islam ? The majority of Muslim women (in America) do not wear them to work.
AL M, I don’t think the concept of “protected class” is encoded in the any sate law. Thew constitution uses “equal protection” which means, for example, that blacks could be prosecuted under hate crimes laws despite being considered a “protected class” by some. In other words, anti-discrimitory laws protect individuals of all classes, not groups.
old news item
Manju, I agree with you and I want you to know that I didn’t approve of it when I saw a similar statement in the comment thread of Ennis’ last post, either. Before someone with poor reading comp skills has an undeserved and unnecessary “eureka” moment and commences typing, put the torch down and pay attention: I’m not saying that I defend Alamo.
But I do defend our readers’ rights to disagree with “prevailing” or “popular” sentiment, something which I worry about after reading some terribly petty and demeaning comments which were written by a few people who chose to gang up on someone they disagreed with yesterday. I debated for four years in high school and it taught me a healthy appreciation for both the willingness to understand what you disagree with and the art of rhetoric; I wish I saw more of both at our neverending cocktail party. I want this to be a space that is open to all, not an echo chamber where commenters are forced to lurk in silence because they are bullied or turned off by shit like this.
Manju, if you’re right, then there’s no need for anti-discrimination legislation at all, and we should depend on market forces to sanction any company that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The problem is that these same groups often don’t have much market leverage, having been systematically discriminated against for a long time.
Indeed, one of the sources interviewed for this story compared it to the argument that southern companies during the civil rights era couldn’t justify discriminating against black employees on the grounds that their customers were bigotted and didn’t want to be served by African-Americans.
Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. I wont do it again, Auntie Anna 😉 Promise.
abcde – if by old, you mean last week, I am guilty as charged. The news stories I quote are from June 8th, last thursday.
this convo already looks like veering off into sideshow issues. the key in what ennis posted is this observation, which is backed up by the news items he cites:
whether what the company did was lawful or not (and a judge has now determined that it was not), the point is that the company altered its policy on the headscarf after 9/11 and admitted that the sole harm it felt it faced from the employee continuing to wear the headscarf was public relations harm.
the question behind all this is how corporations, which determine directly (through spending choices) and indirectly (by affecting consumer behavior and expectations) so much in the culture of daily life, are choosing to respond to the perceived “islamic threat.” corporate leaders have choices: they can pander or they can instead become leaders in seeking solutions. there are many examples of political conflicts where business has gone ahead of politicians in working for a solution. in apartheid south africa, for instance, business leaders started negotiating with the ANC long before the government did. i’m not saying that’s a direct comparison, btw, because it isn’t, but it’s just an example to show that business has choices.
peace
Vikram – it doesn’t have to be mandated for everybody, it just has to be a belief system that is (consistently) held:
I’m not too sure about this. I think blacks have tremendous leverage on this issue, as racism is considered taboo in our society and no company wants to associate themselves with it.
Nonetheless, I understand the need for the ’64 civil rights act, as blacks were the target of a brutal, systematic government sponsered discrimination. I daresay, not all groups–including desis–fall under this category.
ennis:
I think you misunderstand vikram. It is AL M that is trying to make a distinction as to why one case is discrimitory but the other not. I think we must all try to be consistent here lest we give more protection to our group, but deny it to others.
For the record, I think both cases could be solved outside the law. But if the law is involved, they are clearly both discrimitory.
anees, actually it’s more than 2 weeks old – which is pretty stale, IMHO.
well then how about you go start your own blog where you can put things up in real-time. wtf.
This is an interesting discussion. In Vikram’s example, how was the company’s policy of not allowing pork products on the premises communicated to the employee? She didn’t sign anything. Does a verbal communication count given that there is no record of it? Do companies need to give a rationale for firing someone? It’s true they can fire for no reason or a trumped up reason, but when does it become legally actionable? BTW, Anna, I agree with your comments about that really ugly intervention by somebody yesterday. I actually agreed with the political views expressed but was disgusted by the form they took. I wish people would learn the ABC of the slogan ‘the personal is political’ before they use it. It does not mean you make personal remarks, and actualizing your politics in your own life is a tall order, hardly something to be judged by a casual bystander. I was hoping you would jump in and scorch the hell out of that jerk.
Do companies need to give a rationale for firing someone?
No.
It’s true they can fire for no reason or a trumped up reason, but when does it become legally actionable?
Ok, real quick:
In most states you can fire people for any reason whatsoever. However under Title VII and it clones which are found in almost all states, an employer cannot fire people based on their religion, sex, color, national origin and later expanded to include pregnancy, age and also disability under some other laws.
Also in some states you cannot fire people for reasons which violate public policy (like whistleblowing laws, telling on a tax cheating employer etc.)
If you are not in the above categories, in most states you can be fire for any reason or no reason at all.
AL M, I don’t think the concept of “protected class” is encoded in the any sate law. Thew constitution uses “equal protection” which means, for example, that blacks could be prosecuted under hate crimes laws despite being considered a “protected class” by some. In other words, anti-discrimitory laws protect individuals of all classes, not groups.
See comment # 25.
It is AL M that is trying to make a distinction as to why one case is discrimitory but the other not. I think we must all try to be consistent here lest we give more protection to our group, but deny it to others.
I dont see the discrimination in stopping people from eating pork, unless of course there is some overt or insidious discriminatory intent behind stopping people from eating pork.
Al M:
I agree w/ your interpretation of the law in comment #25, but I think you contradict youself by defending the employers in Vikram’s example.
Title VII has been enforced to prevent employers from imposing their religious sentiments on employees, unless the employer is a religious group.
Not that i agree with it, but that’s the law.
This would only be of interest to American Catholics if eating pork in the lunch room was mandated by the tenets of Catholicism. The woman had no right to eat pork. I am not sure about Florida but in most states, you can fire your employee for a good reason, bad reason or no reason. The only exception is that you cannot fire someone for a reason which is discriminatory and you are a member of that protected class (religion, color, national origin, sex)
While the Catholic angle really does not work in this example, and the woman in question has no “right” to eat pork, she certainly has the “linerty” to do so. This is imposing one’s religious values on someone else. If the employer were Hindu, and fired an employee for eating a roast beef sandwich – would we expect the same reasoning. And the whole idea of “protected class” is pretty lame. It’s a slightly more polite version of India’s policies of labeling certain groups as “backward”.
And big-ups to Anna on calling out this bizarre “betting pool” form of debate. South Asians are constantly hectoring non-members of the tribe of the diversity of the region and its people, but woe onto the brown guy/gal who expresses that diversity in a political discussion.
Sorry folks – that’s “liberty”, not “linerty”
I dont see the discrimination in stopping people from eating pork, unless of course there is some overt or insidious discriminatory intent behind stopping people from eating pork.
elementary and tautological
Today they’ll stop you from eating pork. Tomorrow they will stop you from displaying the Cross/Om on neckchains. Day-after-tomorrow they will stop women from wearing Jeans/sleeveless blouses. And the day after that they will ask women to come to work with a head-scarf. Then they will ask men to sport a beard.
Yet, I agree with their right to do so, but disagree with the idea. A company should have the right to make any demands on their employees, as long as it’s documented and the policies are clearly communicated to the employee before joining. If the policies are changed mid-way, they should be circulated within the company and employees should be given sufficient time to comply (or go elsewhere).
In this case, Alamo clearly violated not only the law but also the spirit of the law. If there was a policy against head-scarves (and I agree with their right to have such a policy), it should be in black-and-white. Looks like they made up rules along the way, and that should be penalised.
Same with the pork case – they just made up the rule at whim. They should pay too.
M. Nam
If the employer were Hindu, and fired an employee for eating a roast beef sandwich – would we expect the same reasoning.
You should expect the same reason from me.
While the Catholic angle really does not work in this example, and the woman in question has no “right” to eat pork, she certainly has the “liberty” to do so.
The employer can put all kinds of restrictions on the employee’s liberty.
Title VII has been enforced to prevent employers from imposing their religious sentiments on employees, unless the employer is a religious group.
I see where you are going with this. Actually I havnt come across cases where I have seen this interpretation of Title VII but I would imagine the intent in such an interpretation of Title VII would be to prevent the employer from mandating such overt, religious proscriptions which would deter the people from the non favored religion to either apply for the job or stay in it. In this case, the pork proscription does not rise to that level.
Today they’ll stop you from eating pork. Tomorrow they will stop you from displaying the Cross/Om on neckchains. Day-after-tomorrow they will stop women from wearing Jeans/sleeveless blouses. And the day after that they will ask women to come to work with a head-scarf. Then they will ask men to sport a beard.
I am presuming that you would agree with a legal system which would not prevent an employer from stopping people from wearing Oms around their necks as long as the laws were advertised in advance and the prospective employees know about it in advance?
Just to be clear, when I say I dont see discrimination, I mean it in the legal sense. Personally I believe the no pork policy is silly and I would not like to work there.
Yes, I agree with such a legal system.
My view is that companies with such discriminatory policies will not last long in the marketplace. Companies which celebrate/encourage diversity will dominate.
M. Nam
From a legal point of view, you may be right. We’d have to take a look at the case law. It’s a fine distiction though.
Sounds like you agree with such a legal system too, ie one that would not prevent an employer form stopping people from eating pork.
We have reached a milestone, MoorNam and Al D agree.
Good point. Let Alamo discriminate. A clever competitor or entrepreneur would use this as a opportunity to target the Muslim population as customers.
Sounds like you agree with such a legal system too, ie one that would not prevent an employer form stopping people from eating pork.
No, I dont, I am talking in a strict legal sense. See my comment # 35:
I want to address this issue of timeliness because it irks me:
ABCDE,
You’re right that the EEOC press release came out on May 30th, which was two weeks ago.
However, the local newspaper, the Arizona Star, first picked up the story on June 8th and then ran a longer article on June 12th, just a few days ago. The story has still received very little attention from the MSM.
If you find out about such stories before we do, and in fact, before the MSM picks it up, you are encouraged to post them in our news tab.
I, on the other hand, will post whenever I see fit. Maybe you’re an employment lawyer, and you’ve known about this case for two weeks, and it really bugs you to hear about it after all these many long days … then don’t read the post. If you choose to read the post, and to comment on it, then be constructive. Join the dialogue. Don’t sit there from the sidelines and snipe at us, people who have full time jobs. It’s both annoying and plain rude.
That’s a fascinating empirical point you’ve made. There’s a long history of discrimination in the USA, would you care to show evidence that demonstrates that countries that discriminated in the past fared poorly?
Yes, but it’s mostly history. It was the Industrial North which allowed blacks to compete in the open market. The Feudal South wanted to extend slavery. North won. To this date, the most successful enterprises are from the North.
Let’s talk about countries that discriminate in the present. The US has the most liberal(in the true sense of the word) employee policies in the world. The potential for advancement for a non-WASP is much greater than the potential for advancement for a non-WASP in Britain, non-German in Germany, non-French in France, non-HanChinese in China etc. Hence, all those countries fare poorly compared to the US.
If I were Hertz’s CEO, I would be smiling right now. These snafus are a golden opportunity for competetitors to up the ante.
M. Nam
Ennis, here is an example:
A larger point IÂ’d like to make is that it is a mistake for desis to rely on anti-discrimination laws. History shows that in the US, those groups that have relied on these laws have little to show for it, while those who embrace the free-market have achieved incredible power.
Take Jews and the history of Wall Street. Not too long ago, a jew could barely get a job at a white shoe firm (Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan). So they created their own firms, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Salomon Bros) and these firms have firmly replace the old WASP firms in the pecking order. In fact many of the old prestigious discriminatory WASP firms are no longer in business (Drexel, Kidder Peabody).
Not to long ago, the former king of wall street, sandy weill (who started at Drexel but because of discrimination went to the jewish firm Bear Sterns) sought to buy J.P Morgan (when he was CEO of insurance giant Travelers). Morgan refused to sell and sandy went around the Street saying “Morgan will never sell to a Jew.” He then bought the powerful Jewish bond trading firm, Salomon bros, which along w/ retail giant smith barney now constitutes Citigroups investment bank…which dwarfs J..P Morgans.
Now the Jewish firms simply dominate Wall street. The only WASP firm left are Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan, and they no longer discriminate. The free market is our friend. Discrimination creates opportunity. As “India shines”, desis—of all people—should understand this.
Manju writes: >>A larger point IÂ’d like to make is that it is a mistake for desis to rely on anti-discrimination laws..those groups that have relied on these laws have little to show for it, while those who embrace the free-market have achieved incredible power
Can I just repeat that, in bold and everything, because the statement is so very true..?
It is a mistake for desis to rely on anti-discrimination laws..those groups that have relied on these laws have little to show for it, while those who embrace the free-market have achieved incredible power
Can someone please invite AdityaDhawans, BijuMathews, BhairaviDesais of the world to read the above statement and get it into their thick skulls?
M. Nam
Ennis, better late than never; see how much fun we’re having already with this topic…
Ummm, so if I understand this properly you mean to say that this is actually an opportunity for Muslim entrepeneurs to open up their own rental car establishments and beat Alamo at their own game?
I think that the Wall Street example that you use is a little oversimplified.
thanks Al M for D. News analysis always follows news reports, sometimes by more than a week. What’s the problem with that? We’re not person-ing a newsdesk, we’re interested in intelligent discussions. Bring it on SM.
A few points:
1) Alamo did try to accomodate the employee and did not always have a anti-scarf policy towards her. So it cant be open-shut religious discrimination, but more likely an attempt to control the image presented by their company. In this case the court ruled against Alamo because : The aspect they tried to control is also linked to religion. I would say that is the point of the whole case – ordinary rules dont apply when it comes to religion. Ofcourse the ruling may be reversed in higher courts after all – refer to points 2,3,4.
2) I am curious how the employee’s lawyer argued that wearing a head scarf is a religious mandate or a wide spread belief system in Islam, because there are hundreds of millions of muslim women who dont think so in countries all over the world. I am saying this is something that is debated widely among muslims. I can see how a Sikh’s turban or a Kemetecist’s tattos are easier to accept as evidence.
3) The employee wanted to wear a scarf only during Ramadan. I am no Islamic scholar but this doesnt fit with any interpretation of the head scarf debate that I am aware of. Also, there were various other options(more grey area) like taking vacation/unpaid leave/ not work at the front desk during Ramadan.
4)Did she only want to wear a scarf or did she want to pray 5 times a day(which as far as I am aware is a more unambiguously serious requirement)?
5) Finally , was her termination in anyway related to this issue at all? I dont see “Wrongful Termination” being used in the plaintiffs case.
So maybe we should cut Alamo some slack before jumping to conclusions about its racist/anti islamic tendencies.
Just because Alamo is in Texas and GWB is from Texas deosnt make Alamo evil 😉
Badmash:
The shift in finance is extraordinary and very prescient to desi success. These old-line WASPS firms (Drexel, Kidder, Dillon Read, Hayden Stone, etc) once freakin dominatedÂ… and no one could dream of them going under. To see the buldge bracket on the street now dominated by historically jewish firms is simply astonishing to anyone w/ a knowledge of the history of finance.
And the shift continues. The VCÂ’s (those that finance start-ups) have replaced the Ibanker in the pecking order, and Indians are over-represented in this group. Successful VCÂ’s have become billionaires (like vinod khosla) while ibankers only make hundreds of millions. Now people care about your knowledge of technology and entrepreneurial spirit to do these deals, as opposed to whether you went to boarding school w/ the ceo of ford motor, so maybe you can bring in an M & A transaction. Hedge fund types that trade in derivitives and arbitrage (which relies on mathematical skills) have also dwarfed the earnings of the traditional relationship-oriented ibanker. Science/Math opens finance up to all groups. The market has killed discrimination.
High growth companies like MSFT and SUNW dominate the marketplace and they are very minority friendly (I should say neutral) b/c they care about objective scientific knowledge. Even non-tech coÂ’s like Metlife and Merrill lynch have made a fortune targeting minority customers for financial services by hiring minorities as salespeople. I know of no prominent money management firm that exclusively manages for the WASP elite, as there were in the past.
As globalization marches on, every major Ibank has a Chinese speaking director trying to penetrate the Chinese market. No prominent ibank relies on doing deals w/ old line WASP coÂ’s like ford or ibm. The ones that tried have gone out of business. The only groups not benefitting from globalization this are those thet come from reactionary contries like venezuala. Globalization is killing discrimination too.
Even on a smaller scale, I see taxi drivers starting their own limo service or opening their own stores. This is VC activity too.
And yes, if you are discriminated against, you can open your own firm and go to your own community for customers. Jews did it successfully, I see Jamaicans in NY doing it too. Desis can as well. Actually, we already are which is why IÂ’m completely gobsmacked when desiÂ’s themselves look to the nanny state.
sorry for the long post. this is a little personal.
What if Alamo had said that they didn’t want any brown faces at their customer service desks post 9/11 because it would scare off their customers? Rather like some airlines bundled out South Asian passengers because they made others “uncomfortable” in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? Would all our resident Ayn Rands be talking about self reliance and forming your own company then?
Lots of Sikhs were subject to racist attacks post 9/11 because some Americans assumed turbans = bin Laden. Should a company be allowed to fire a Sikh employee in case he scares off customers?
On the question of religious obligations, one could argue that not eating beef is not a strict religious obligation for Hindus as it isn’t really written down but is more a matter of custom/taboo, and many Hindus in the US do eat beef. Ditto for vegetarianism. Hypothetically, you could argue that a very team-driven company could fire a vegetarian brahmin employee who didn’t come to company cook-outs and eat steak or meat with everyone else because said employee didn’t seem to have team spirit or be sociable. Is that discriminatory?
I don’t think anyone should be fired for eating pork because they work for Muslims or Jews, nor do I think folks should be fired for being gay if they work for a church.