ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Out with the young and beautiful. In with the ugly and ‘beheadbagged’ look.

af_jihab3_090918_mn-viStarting Friday, you won’t have to be good-looking to work for clothing icon ‘Abercrombie & Fitch.’ You also won’t have to be young and stylish. Now you can be an unattractive Muslim woman wearing a tent and a bag on your head and get a job at A&F, thanks to multiple lawsuits filed against the company by the litigation jihdadists at CAIR.

6349299488464200001

Bloomberg  Oh, they are saying they are trying to broaden their customer base by “retiring the appearance and sense of style” hiring for employees that stipulated youth, sexiness, and attractiveness.

(But we all know what’s actually behind this: Political Correctness foisted on the country by the Left and embraced by the Muslim fascists invading America, who never stop trying to destroy free speech and force Americans to accept and embrace their oppressive religious customs and offensive cultural ideas which include misogynistic dress codes and behavior for women)

Abercrombie-710x409

The changes are the latest for the once high-flying retailer, which pioneered the sexy preppy look and made male models with ridiculously ripped abs a billboard standard. By retiring the “appearance and sense of style” hiring rule that stipulated attractiveness, Abercrombie is scrapping the last of the legacy of former Chief Executive Officer Mike Jeffries, who left in December.

U.S. Retailers' July Sales Trail Projections On Spending Cuts

When new stores open, shirtless hunky young men no longer greet patrons outside. In fact, by the end of July, sexualized marketing images will be gone from shopping bags, in-store photos and gift cards. (But you can be sure Muslim women in headbags will be a presence at A&F. Can  ‘fashion’ burqas be far behind?)

26431-covercopy-1425295041-938-640x480

The company was mocked for the “Look Policy,” and sued over how it was implemented. U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments in February in the case of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim teenager who was denied a job because she wore a head scarf. Abercrombie agreed to pay $71,000 to settle two suits similar to Elauf’s in California in 2013. In her case, the company argued its actions were legal because it didn’t have “actual knowledge” that Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons. A federal appeals court sided with Abercrombie, and Elauf appealed to the high court.

Fortune Now, the Ohio-based clothing chain will have to defend itself in the Supreme Court for not hiring a worker because the hijab she wore did not comply with its strict dress code.

A&F will appear before the Supreme Court of the United States to defend its decision in 2008 to not hire Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman, to work at a Tulsa, Oklahoma Abercrombie Kids store as a sales associate—or a “model,” as Abercrombie calls the position internally. The reason they didn’t hire her? The hijab she wore did not comply with the company’s strict dress code.

image

Abercrombie’s so-called Look Policy gives “models” specific rules for their appearance—guidelines that “ensure [Abercrombie’s] consistent brand message,” according to the retailer’s court filings.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie for discrimination on Elauf’s behalf in 2009. The jury in that case sided with Elauf and awarded her $20,000 in damages. But the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2013 overturned that verdict after determining that Abercrombie couldn’t be held liable because Elauf never explicitly told the company that she wore her hijab for religious purposes and that she would therefore need an exemption from the company’s dress policy.

covered (2)

The Supreme Court will decide if Abercrombie acted legally, and it will also answer a broader question: who’s responsible for flagging warning signs of potential religious discrimination? Put in another way, do employees and job candidates have to explicitly identify potential conflicts between their religious practices and a company’s policy? Or are there instances in which employers must point to such a clash and discuss how to work around it even if an individual does not explicitly ask?

The new Abercrombie look
The new Abercrombie look

In its filing with the Supreme Court, Abercrombie argues that it is the employee’s duty to ask for accommodation of religious beliefs; it’s not the employer’s responsibility to guess. “Employers are not supposed to ask about religious views or practices,” the filing says.

But their ruling is irrelevant. After fighting several Muslim cases in court, in 2013, the company changed its look policy to acknowledge that Islamic head bags can be accommodated in the workplace.