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.
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.
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.