Salam
In my business Law class, one must make an attempt to rectify the situation before suing - that is why I suggested the letter to the district office.
Wal-mart is actually pretty well known (as a company) for hiring a diverse work-force and hiring those deemed "unhireable" by other companies. I have been to Wal-marts where there have been ladies in hijab working along side pregnant teens with tattoos and lots of piercings.
The problem isn't wal-mart - it is the managers who are telling her not to wear hijab. That is, again, why I suggested the letter. The managers may be required to go through sensititivyt training or a class on understanding Islam - in any case, the sister WILL be supported by wal-mart, as she is already employed there.
Write the letter firmly and be ready to speak to an attorney if necessary, but, insha'Allah a firm letter will help resolve the situation (even if it is that the hours of you and the manager are opposite so you don't work at the same time).
Good luck
Lana[/QUOT
Before you start diffending walmart maybe you should read this
please see this www.wakeupwalmat.com
or www.walmartwatch.com
:astag:salaam alaikum
i started working walmart few months ago and when they did interview me i was waering veil over my head and long dress after the position i applied i found out there were no muslim worked this before me in this store i was the first muslim in this position and the store had one muslimah who didnt put hijab and ofcouse me with the hijab , my supervisor came to on black friday at 5am morrnig as was helping custumers she said to me listen(i know you are new comer to walmart falimy and i dont know if they told you before this position is to hear costumers what they saying to you well and i dont think what you have over you hair whayou call that hijaab it fit this position, if you cant take off this maybe you should look for another job and see living here its hard to find job its small town and no one is going to hire you ,) , i when to assistant manager on my department and he came back and told me (i cant coach people around do as she said to you, this is america and its not overseas, )i told him im canadian muslim born i lived canada never had to throught this before i know america you have freedom of religion then he said ( that dont apply to you miss) and he said even if you try involve outsider to this problem it dont mean that you are going to get your way. when i asked palce i can pray they sent to me the bathroom or electric room with high voltage room , they make fun of me be the only wearing skirt
Man if I were ther, I would've put them on a hitlist. Or I would've hurt them myself. WAlk down the street, find out ya get shot in the leg by a heat.
:astag:salaam alaikum
i started working walmart few months ago and when they did interview me i was waering veil over my head and long dress after the position i applied i found out there were no muslim worked this before me in this store i was the first muslim in this position and the store had one muslimah who didnt put hijab and ofcouse me with the hijab , my supervisor came to on black friday at 5am morrnig as was helping custumers she said to me listen(i know you are new comer to walmart falimy and i dont know if they told you before this position is to hear costumers what they saying to you well and i dont think what you have over you hair whayou call that hijaab it fit this position, if you cant take off this maybe you should look for another job and see living here its hard to find job its small town and no one is going to hire you ,) , i when to assistant manager on my department and he came back and told me (i cant coach people around do as she said to you, this is america and its not overseas, )i told him im canadian muslim born i lived canada never had to throught this before i know america you have freedom of religion then he said ( that dont apply to you miss) and he said even if you try involve outsider to this problem it dont mean that you are going to get your way. when i asked palce i can pray they sent to me the bathroom or electric room with high voltage room , they make fun of me be the only wearing skirt
Man if I were ther, I would've put them on a hitlist. Or I would've hurt them myself. WAlk down the street, find out ya get shot in the leg by a heat.
:astag:salaam alaikum
i started working walmart few months ago and when they did interview me i was waering veil over my head and long dress after the position i applied i found out there were no muslim worked this before me in this store i was the first muslim in this position and the store had one muslimah who didnt put hijab and ofcouse me with the hijab , my supervisor came to on black friday at 5am morrnig as was helping custumers she said to me listen(i know you are new comer to walmart falimy and i dont know if they told you before this position is to hear costumers what they saying to you well and i dont think what you have over you hair whayou call that hijaab it fit this position, if you cant take off this maybe you should look for another job and see living here its hard to find job its small town and no one is going to hire you ,) , i when to assistant manager on my department and he came back and told me (i cant coach people around do as she said to you, this is america and its not overseas, )i told him im canadian muslim born i lived canada never had to throught this before i know america you have freedom of religion then he said ( that dont apply to you miss) and he said even if you try involve outsider to this problem it dont mean that you are going to get your way. when i asked palce i can pray they sent to me the bathroom or electric room with high voltage room , they make fun of me be the only wearing skirt
Salam
Please don't talk like this, even in jest. This type of thing is why others think Muslims are violent! even if I were not Muslim, I would tell you it is not appropriate to joke about seriously injuring or killing people.
Lana
ALAMO CAR RENTAL GUILTY OF RELIGIOUS BIAS FEDERAL COURT RULES IN EEOC LAWSUIT
EEOC Said Muslim Employee Fired for Wearing Head Scarf Shortly After 9/11 Attacks
PHOENIX – In a legal victory for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Arizona Federal District Court Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that Alamo Car Rental committed post-9/11 backlash discrimination based on religion when it terminated a Somali customer sales representative in December 2001 for refusing to remove her head scarf during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Alamo Car Rental is owned and operated by Ft. Lauderdale-based Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC and ANC Rental Corporation – a subsidiary of Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc.
In the first post-9/11 backlash case brought by the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, the court took the unusual step of finding the religious discrimination so clear cut based on the pleadings that it did not need to be resolved by a jury.
“It is extremely rare that a court will find discrimination based solely on the pleadings,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney for the Phoenix District Office. “The court found undisputed evidence that Alamo should have approved this employee’s request to wear her head scarf as a religious accommodation or proposed a reasonable alternative.”
According to Judge Silver’s ruling: “It is undisputed that the accommodation Alamo offered Ms. Nur required her to remove her head covering during Ramadan when she served clients but still required her to serve clients, making it impossible for Ms. Nur to avoid removing her head covering at work.” Accordingly, Alamo’s proposal would have failed to accommodate Ms. Nur’s religious conflict and was not a reasonable accommodation.”
The EEOC filed suit in September 2002 (EEOC v Alamo Rent -A-Car, LLC; ANC Rental Corporation, CIV 02 1908 PHX ROS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona only after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary settlement.
Prior to being fired, charging party Bilan Nur had worked for Alamo since 1999. EEOC’s lawsuit asserted that the company had permitted her to wear a head covering for religious reasons during Ramadan in 1999 and 2000. However, following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Alamo refused to permit Ms. Nur to observe this particular religious belief during December of 2001.
Alamo claimed that it told Ms. Nur that the company dress code prohibited wearing of a scarf. Notwithstanding Alamo’s representation, the EEOC found that the company had no such policy. When Ms. Nur refused to remove the religious garment, Alamo disciplined, suspended and terminated her employment following consultation with regional level human resources officials and in-house counsel.
“I am very pleased that the judge believed that Alamo’s actions were illegal,” said Ms. Nur, who now resides in Minneapolis. “No person should ever have to be forced to choose between her religion and her job. Alamo appeared to understand this before the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001. Then something changed. This has been an incredible nightmare for me and I am very grateful to the EEOC for its efforts to correct this wrong.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion
“Unless a religious accommodation imposes an undue hardship, employers are strongly advised to look favorably on such requests,” said EEOC Regional Attorney O’Neill. “Given the strong facts of this case, we are surprised that a large employer as sophisticated as Alamo has repeatedly refused to stand up and take responsibility for such a conspicuous violation of law.”
Chester V. Bailey, District Director for the EEOC Phoenix office, said: “As the court found, Alamo dismissed the requests by Ms. Nur for accommodation without consideration, in violation of the mandates of Title VII. This decision was made at the corporate Human Resources level apparently in consultation with in-house counsel., Alamo’s violation is particularly noteworthy given that one of the individuals involved in the disciplinary action wore a cross at work.”
According to its web site (www.alamo.com), Alamo Rent-A-Car is one of the nation’s largest rental car companies operating in 1,000 locations nationwide and internationally. The Alamo Rent-A-Car brand is owned and operated by Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc., a worldwide organization with more than 3,200 locations in 83 countries and a domestic fleet of more than 217,000 automobiles.
The EEOC is the federal government agency that enforces the nation’s anti-discrimination laws in the workplace based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, retaliation, age and disability. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car
In EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, the EEOC brought suit against Alamo Rent-A-Car (“Alamo”) on behalf of Bilan Nur, a Muslim woman. Ms. Nur was employed as a rental agent at one of Alamo’s agencies in Phoenix, Arizona. Alamo had a “Dress Smart Policy” that expressly prohibited employees from wearing certain types of clothing and accessories, but did not specifically prohibit the wearing of head coverings. The policy, however, contained a clause prohibiting the wearing of any “garment or item of outer clothing not specifically mentioned in this policy.”
In November 2001, Ms. Nur requested an accommodation to wear a hijab, or head scarf, during Ramadan, the Islamic holy month. Ms. Nur was told that she could wear a head covering in the back of the office but not at the front counter where she would be interacting with customers.
Ms. Nur violated Alamo’s policy several times by coming to work wearing a hijab and refusing to remove it while working at the front counter. Ms. Nur was then terminated for repeated violation of Alamo’s dress code policy.
In ruling in favor of the EEOC on summary judgment, the district court held that Alamo failed to demonstrate that it took any steps to accommodate Ms. Nur’s request, and did not provide any proof that it entered into communications with Ms. Nur in an effort to explore potential reasonable accommodations. At trial in June 2007, a jury awarded $287,640 to Ms. Nur in back wages, compensatory damages and punitive damages.