Muslim woman claims discrimination over uniform skirt.

[stripekv]

http://news889.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n111976A


From my point of view, she knew what the dress code was going to be when she got the job. She got her job 5 years ago, why bring it up now? When she got the job she should have asked her employer if it was possible to wear a longer skirt or w/e. Employers shouldn't have to c hange their dress codes for everyone. The employee knows going in what they are expected to wear and if they have a problem with that they should just not accept the job, and apply elsewhere where they are allowed to wear their proper religious clothing.

To me, it looks like she is just hauling out the religion card, which is probably nestled quite nicely next to her visa and mastercards in her purse.

[girdy]

I think what she did to accomodate her religious belief was reasonable, and should be allowed. Frankly, the fact that a security screener at the airport wears a long dress instead of long pants, or a long dress instead of a shorter dress, isn't meaningful in terms of job performance. Is anyone going to feel less safe because one worker at security is wearing a dress 12 inches longer than another?

If strict application of the dress code isn't necessary for the job, and you deny people from various races or religions from applying to the job because of an un-necessary dress code, you're discriminating against them. The dress code should change IMO.

[Cherry Pop]

I use to work at a place where we had to wear uniforms. We were not allowed to make any changes to them at all and there was a certain way to wear them and we had to wear them that way at all times. I can understand companies wanting that however, I feel that maybe they could have revamped their uniforms and made some skirts longer for women who wanted longer skirts. I'm wondering if this woman ever requested this. The place I worked changed the design of their uniforms 3 times in the 4 years I worked there so it is something that companies do from time to time.

[christine chittick]

Does what a person wear matter as long as it is covering private parts and within reason ie. clean, not ripped, etc?? Dress codes should be a little more lenient - as long as it is not compromising safety.

Since it is dress code subject... working on tile concrete tile flooring, I don't think that workers should have to wear dress shoes. I think they should be allowed to wear sneakers. People who work at walmart, tim's and places like that. (Actually I think Tim's allows black sneakers)...but Walmart I know its against their policy. Yes, dress shoes are part of their dress code, but think of the damage it can cause to feet and backs due to poor support. Poor support can cause damage, and pain which in turns leads to time away from work, doctors appointments, etc. Time means money in this world.

[mommyd]

Since it is dress code subject... working on tile concrete tile flooring, I don't think that workers should have to wear dress shoes. I think they should be allowed to wear sneakers. People who work at walmart, tim's and places like that. (Actually I think Tim's allows black sneakers)...but Walmart I know its against their policy. Yes, dress shoes are part of their dress code, but think of the damage it can cause to feet and backs due to poor support. Poor support can cause damage, and pain which in turns leads to time away from work, doctors appointments, etc. Time means money in this world.

Not all dress shoes hurt your feet. You may have to pay a little more for good shoes but that being said, not all sneakers are good for your feet either. So either way, in order to have proper footwear that won't hurt after wearing them for so long, you're most likely going to have to pay a little more. And there is nothing wrong with that, it's an investment you're making for yourself.

[mizunderstood]

I think the issue was that she didn't agree with the original uniform of pants, BUT she made alternate arrangments (wore her jacket for her full shift to "hide" her body) The problem is that THE COMPANY changed their uniform policy to a "immodest" skirt after she had been employed for 5 years. They changed the "rules" and she did not agree with that. She has every right. It has nothing to do with being muslim, it is personal belief that a skirt should be a certain length. I agree myself. I would put up a huge stink if my boss decided one day that I now had to wear a knee lenght skirt. UMMMM no. I do not feel comfortable/safe/respected in a skirt that short. ( I know some do, but its my personal opinion that skirts should be to the ankle) THe other issue that they have is that they allowed her to wear this uniform for 6 MONTHS before bringing it to her attention. She has every right to fight this and I believe that she should win. She was hired under the terms of a set uniform and she abided by that. The company should not FORCE her to do soemthing that is against her moral/religious/personal beliefs. I personally do not think they have a "leg" to stand on (haha) As far as she should suck it up, or go find another job. Why should she have to do that??? She was hired on specific terms, she followed them, they changed them, she has the right as an employee under the law to refuse. It would be a differnent story if she was hired knowing they had a knee lenght skirt policy and she took the job anyways and then decided to fight it, but that's not the case. She has already compromised her beliefs by wearing pants (a big no no in her culture) why should she be pushed to be "immodest"? And I think she was far more respectful than most employees would have been under the circumstances. She even went out and bought the material to make a similar "modified" uniform. (Saving the company money on having one made for her might I add) Come on people even Mcd's and Timmy's gives you the option to wear the pants or the skirt!

[mizunderstood]

http://news889.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n111976A


From my point of view, she knew what the dress code was going to be when she got the job. She got her job 5 years ago, why bring it up now? When she got the job she should have asked her employer if it was possible to wear a longer skirt or w/e. Employers shouldn't have to c hange their dress codes for everyone. The employee knows going in what they are expected to wear and if they have a problem with that they should just not accept the job, and apply elsewhere where they are allowed to wear their proper religious clothing.

To me, it looks like she is just hauling out the religion card, which is probably nestled quite nicely next to her visa and mastercards in her purse.

That is a very misconscrewed opinion. It was not the case for her. She was hired 5 years ago and the uniform was PANTS she follwed that rule. Now they changed it and she does not believe that is respectful and she should not be forced to wear something that she is uncomfrtable with. I would do the same thing! She objects to wearing a short skirt for her own personal beliefs and should not be forced to wear it since that was not the original agreed upon uniform.

[stripekv]

It should be noted, that it was either pants or skirts that she was able to wear when she started.

There is more information that wasn't in this article that appeared on a weekly call in talk show on one of the local radio stations.

[puppyluv]

The issue isn't religion in the forefront..
it is how the compnay changed...and while companies do chenge they also need to make guidelines that can be worked with. In today's world, nothing is black and white anymore.
Now, on the other front, if she could wear pants to begin with, I think she should be able to wear them..If it was a skirt she should be able to wear a longer one...Why does she HAVE to wear a knee lenght one? SOunds a little sexist to me...Tell me, do the men wear them too? If ladies show some leg, so should the men..Sound stupid doesnt it?

let her wear her skirt...at least she has respect..look at osme of the people with shirts barely covering anythign working in the public..or guys and gals wearing clothes so tight they should be deemed immodest...or x rated~

[mizunderstood]

I totally agree puppyluv! Let her wear a longer skirt, what harm is it going to do?Also it would make getting through the lines at the airport a lot more amusing to see big 6 foot tall men wearing a skirt! lol...

[trinity]

I don't understand what happened- she made herself a skirt, which she wore for 6 months. It almost seems like someone is pulling a power trip of some sort, 6 months she wears it and then gets suspended? ridiculous. Let her wear a burkha if she wants, as long as it does not get in the way of her doing her job or create a safety hazard. I can see some places where your appearance is important as part of your job- receptionists, front desk clerks at a hotel, salespeople etc , but do we even really LOOK at the person who scans our luggage? No, because they are performing a job that we hate to endure.

[sanstu]

I attended a private school. Uniforms were mandatory, and no, you could not modify the uniform. Most places of employment have dress codes. Right or wrong, you are aware of these conditions of employment prior to hire. It is then up to you to either accept these conditions of employment or turn it down. What's the issue?

[mizunderstood]

But she did follow dress code for more than 5 years! And all she wants to do is keep herself covered by wearing a long skirt... What is the big deal???

[Cherry Pop]

The issue isn't religion in the forefront..
it is how the compnay changed...and while companies do chenge they also need to make guidelines that can be worked with. In today's world, nothing is black and white anymore.
Now, on the other front, if she could wear pants to begin with, I think she should be able to wear them..If it was a skirt she should be able to wear a longer one...Why does she HAVE to wear a knee lenght one? SOunds a little sexist to me...Tell me, do the men wear them too? If ladies show some leg, so should the men..Sound stupid doesnt it?

let her wear her skirt...at least she has respect..look at osme of the people with shirts barely covering anythign working in the public..or guys and gals wearing clothes so tight they should be deemed immodest...or x rated~

I didn't even think about the male/female factor! I wonder what would happen if the men had to wear short shorts?! I'm betting that all the men would make a stink.

[mizunderstood]

agreed cherry!

[sanstu]

This lady rejected the "below the knee" uniform skirt and wanted a garment that conformed with Islamic dress codes. This is totally about religion. How far does a company have to go?

[mizunderstood]

Well what if she didn't bring up the point of being muslim and just said I do not agree with showing that much skin? I want to have a modest dress? I don't think that is a huge request. And most companies would LOVE to have a employee that is that respectable! This woman, is a very respectable lady and wants to be dressed as such. It does not need to be about her religion, it is about modesty. I am not muslim and I would never agree to wear a skirt that short. What would I file it as??? It wouldn't be religious reasons.
I would not be asking for a garment that conformed to my relious beliefs, I would be asking because I wish to be modest! It's not like she asked to wear the traditional muslim burka, she just wants to wear something that covers her body! come on people this doesn't have to be about religion, just becase it is part OF her religion to keep your body covered!

[mizunderstood]

.

[mizunderstood]

This lady rejected the "below the knee" uniform skirt and wanted a garment that conformed with Islamic dress codes. This is totally about religion. How far does a company have to go?

How does asking for a longer dress= islamic dress code?
Remember she wore it for 6+ months with no issues. She was not wearing the head covering, or anything else religious, all she wants is to be covered with clothing. There is no need to wear a short(er) skirt. It does not affect her job performance. And if they push this issue furthur I think the men should have to suffer too.! lol.. Make them wear the short skirt, or a pair of short shorts, see how fast they would object.

[mizunderstood]

It should be noted, that it was either pants or skirts that she was able to wear when she started.

So if she went back to wearing the pants would they have an issue with that?

[Intrepid]

I looked up some articles about this, and here are some important facts:


1) The security firm "Garda" is contracted by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATA) to handle security screening at the airport.

"In February, Muse started wearing an ankle-length skirt that matched her uniform with the blessing of her employer, Garda of Canada. But in August, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority insisted she choose between their slacks and knee-length skirt. When she refused, the authority had her suspended. Last week, Muse took the case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission."
...from http://www.thestar.com/News/article/278443

So basically, her employer was okay with it, but then CATA noticed it a few months later and had her suspended.

She proved herself as a capable employee for 5 years, and although she wore the pants, "No matter how hot the weather, she always wore her uniform jacket to cover the hips."

She got tired of wearing the jacket like that, and got the blessing of Garda to wear the longer skirt (until CATA pointlessly stepped in).


2) Apparently, she has colleagues who have been allowed to raise their hemlines. Yet when this woman wants to lower them, she gets suspended.
...from http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=dfb5c4ae-1601-4af0-9c43-c9037e292516&k=78890


3) CATA's excuse for suspending her is that:

"The whole idea of uniformity is meant to establish a consistent, credible and professional corporate identity, and to change any aspect of the uniform or the uniform policy would have to take a lot of thought and consideration."
...from http://www.thestar.com/article/278062

Their refusal to allow her long skirt apparently has nothing to do with safety or security (or anything sensible). They just don't like her having a longer skirt. But the "consisent uniformity" excuse is foolish. Just one example is that Canada Post has a wide variety of uniform choices, and they look professional. And lowering a hemline is more professional than raising it.

The security people all wear the same jacket, same shirt, same sweater, etc. Some wear pants, and some wear skirts. And yet 12 inches of fabric makes a difference for "consistency"? I don't think so. A long skirt is more similar to a knee-length skirt than pants are. What people wear over their legs is really the most minor part of a uniform... I bet most people wouldn't notice if some of them wore black pants, and some navy-blue.


In conclusion, it was idiotic to suspend her.

And quite frankly, I think people who feel the suspension was justified perhaps have some underlying bigotry issues (not saying they absolutely do, but if the shoe... er, skirt fits... :))

But I just learned from the first article that they have found an interim solution... they have given her an administrative job while they sort out their uniform policy. My prediction is they will realize the stupidity of their rigidness, and allow her to wear the longer skirt.

[Intrepid]

http://news889.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n111976A


From my point of view, she knew what the dress code was going to be when she got the job. She got her job 5 years ago, why bring it up now? When she got the job she should have asked her employer if it was possible to wear a longer skirt or w/e. Employers shouldn't have to c hange their dress codes for everyone. The employee knows going in what they are expected to wear and if they have a problem with that they should just not accept the job, and apply elsewhere where they are allowed to wear their proper religious clothing.

To me, it looks like she is just hauling out the religion card, which is probably nestled quite nicely next to her visa and mastercards in her purse.

Her employer did okay it, but then CATA stepped in 7 months later.

It's one thing if there's a safety or security issue. But that's not the case here - the government agency simply has foolish rules that make no sense, and suspends workers for it. Government agencies have a responsibility even greater than the private sector for ensuring fairness in rules.

Secondly, your last comment is kind of pathetic and diminishes her legitimate complaint. She could have caved in, but she stood her ground even though it meant she was losing her income for 3 months.

So no, I don't think she's just "pulling out the religion card". She wore pants she didn't like for 5 years, and she proved herself as an employee.

In contrast, I find that people like you are truly the ones who have their "anti-religion card" beside your Visa and Mastercard. 5 years is not "just hauling out the religion card" -- it seems she was reluctant to ask for the change, but when she did her employer okayed it; but then CATA pointlessly suspended her 7 months later.

[Intrepid]

Right or wrong, you are aware of these conditions of employment prior to hire.

"Right or wrong" is not true. If a rule is pointless and if it's morally wrong for it to be enforced (by pointlessly penalizing someone), then it should be changed.

This is even more true for government departments and agencies, which are required to be fair and transparent in their employment policies.

I agree with trinity... I think it probably was a powertrip by some bigotted CATA manager, and then CATA felt it had to dig-in its heels in order to not look bad / weak... because they probably expected the lady to cave-in to the pressure. But she fortunately stood her ground.

[sanstu]

Garda is contracted by the CATA to do the screening. The employer sets the conditions, Garda must have accepted these conditons as terms of the contract. This woman was aware of the dress code prior to hire and upon accepting the position was she not accepting the terms and conditions of employment!!! No where have I read the woman's employer, Garda gave permission for the change. This woman had many other options with regards to negotiating a compromise but chose to do it in a manner that would bring about the media coverage and national attention this matter is now receiving.The media has portrayed this woman as being, meek, mild and private......yeah right!!!! Cha-Ching!!

BTW. important "facts" normally come from a statement of claim and defence; not from media coverage!

[mommyd]

BTW. important "facts" normally come from a statement of claim and defence; not from media coverage!

yeah and media coverage is always spot on where the truth is concerned isn't it.

[sanstu]

yeah and media coverage is always spot on where the truth is concerned isn't it.


Hmmm..... nope!

[mommyd]

yeah i was being sarcastic

[krome]

The media has portrayed this woman as being, meek, mild and private......yeah right!!!! Cha-Ching!!!

No wonder people are backing off from fighting for their human rights. They get responses like these that brand them as evil or greedy, rather than people who are merely standing up for themselves. By not supporting this woman's freedom of choice, you're just helping the global elitists achieve their goals of slowly and incrementally eroding our freedoms and rights.

[sanstu]

No wonder people are backing off from fighting for their human rights. They get responses like these that brand them as evil or greedy, rather than people who are merely standing up for themselves. By not supporting this woman's freedom of choice, you're just helping the global elitists achieve their goals of slowly and incrementally eroding our freedoms and rights.

I have not stated where I stand on this matter, rather pointed out some contradictions regarding events leading up to the "media" coverage. Please do not assume you have knowledge of my stance on human rights/ freedom. I find it suspect that the union, and various other groups supporting this woman find the need to play this out in the media. This matter probably could have been resolved to everyones satisfaction without these groups sensationalizing the issue in the media! Hmmm. whom are the "global elitists" in this matter?

I also would like to state I never branded this woman as evil! Shame on you for insinuating I had!!!

[Intrepid]

Krome's comments are so true.

Garda is contracted by the CATA to do the screening. The employer sets the conditions, Garda must have accepted these conditons as terms of the contract. This woman was aware of the dress code prior to hire and upon accepting the position was she not accepting the terms and conditions of employment!!!

Re-read my earlier posts. She asked Garda if she could lower the hemline, and they gave her permission. 7 months later, CATA noticed it, and had her suspended.

What, do you think she had access to the exact contract between CATA and Garda? The employees rely on Garda to tell them the employment policies.

And do you even think the contract says "skirts must not be below the knees"?

I agree that CATA can tell Garda what to do, including suspension of employees. But as a government agency, CATA has a responsibility for fairness in employment policies.


No where have I read the woman's employer, Garda gave permission for the change.

Maybe you need to read more carefully :p I quoted from an article in my earlier post and gave a link. I also saw the same thing mentioned in a couple of other articles from different newspapers.

Common sense would also tell you that Garda would not have allowed her to wear the long skirt for 7 months if they had not given her permission.

By arguing this fact, it seems like you're grasping at straws in order to defend your indefensibly bigotted position.


This woman had many other options with regards to negotiating a compromise but chose to do it in a manner that would bring about the media coverage and national attention this matter is now receiving.

That's a pathetic comment. She put up with the pants for 5 years! And then she did get permission for the long skirt from Garda.

Then she was suspended without pay in August, and she tried negotiating with her employer to find a solution for 3 months.

But CATA continued acting like idiots, so she then rightfully complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It only became public news at that point.

5 years. 3 months.


The media has portrayed this woman as being, meek, mild and private......yeah right!!!! Cha-Ching!!

This is an even more pathetic comment.

She hasn't gained anything from this. She was suspended without pay for 3 months.

She's not suing them over this, so she obviously was not in it for money (although most people would sue, and would have good reason to). She clearly stood up for the principle of fairness.


BTW. important "facts" normally come from a statement of claim and defence; not from media coverage!

Information from the media + common sense can also give you a good basis of the facts (just gotta use the common sense :p).

Look at how you insult someone for standing up for her rights, and how you question her motives, even though common sense could clearly tell you she fought for fairness and not money.

[Intrepid]

rather pointed out some contradictions regarding events leading up to the "media" coverage.

But you didn't point out any contradictions at all :D

You simply wrote some things with faulty logic.


Please do not assume you have knowledge of my stance on human rights/ freedom. I find it suspect that the union, and various other groups supporting this woman find the need to play this out in the media. This matter probably could have been resolved to everyones satisfaction without these groups sensationalizing the issue in the media!

You can blame CATA for the fact that it wasn't resolved easily.

One of the articles had a quote from a Garda spokesperson saying that they tried finding a solution with CATA, but CATA insisted on suspending her.

CATA clearly expected her to buckle under the pressure and give-in, but she fortunately stood her ground.

[sanstu]

You appear to be speaking with first hand knowledge of the events, however all your information is coming from the media. Perhaps if you had any knowledge of contracts you might be able to grasp the fact there are channels that should have been exhaused first. Playing this out in the media is self-serving only to those with something to gain.
Name- calling and insults do not make you right Intrepid. Nor does quoting "newspaper" reports(lol).

[lizard_lover]

You appear to be speaking with first hand knowledge of the events, however all your information is coming from the media. Perhaps if you had any knowledge of contracts you might be able to grasp the fact there are channels that should have been exhaused first. Playing this out in the media is self-serving only to those with something to gain.
Name- calling and insults do not make you right Intrepid. Nor does quoting "newspaper" reports(lol).

and that is all we have to go by. Do you know her personally? Apparently not. And when coming from several different sources, I think intrepid has the right to make his/her (sorry, not sure your sex intrepid) own assumptions. Intrepid did some research to make his opinion. You, on the other hand, just sat, read the first article and opinion, and decided you were going to make this woman out to be a horrible person. You say you didn't, but you did. She went with it for 5 years, and asked to make it longer. She was then suspended.

[sanstu]

and that is all we have to go by. Do you know her personally? Apparently not. And when coming from several different sources, I think intrepid has the right to make his/her (sorry, not sure your sex intrepid) own assumptions. Intrepid did some research to make his opinion. You, on the other hand, just sat, read the first article and opinion, and decided you were going to make this woman out to be a horrible person. You say you didn't, but you did. She went with it for 5 years, and asked to make it longer. She was then suspended.

That is not all one had to go by. This is what some people are choosing to go by. I am finding it totally amusing the amount of "additional information" some people are adding.The sources are newspapers. One paper picks up a story from another and so starts the sensationalization. Kinda like what goes on in this forum with a select few that are choosing to insult and name call. You ask what I do know; I have knowledge with contracts, I have knowledge of filing complaints/ chain of command, and I have knowledge with negotiations.I have said in my opinion this was not handled properly. I have said in my opinion the party concerned waited a very long time. My opinion, which I have a right to.

[Intrepid]

That is not all one had to go by. This is what some people are choosing to go by. I am finding it totally amusing the amount of "additional information" some people are adding.The sources are newspapers. One paper picks up a story from another and so starts the sensationalization. Kinda like what goes on in this forum with a select few that are choosing to insult and name call. You ask what I do know; I have knowledge with contracts, I have knowledge of filing complaints/ chain of command, and I have knowledge with negotiations.I have said in my opinion this was not handled properly. I have said in my opinion the party concerned waited a very long time. My opinion, which I have a right to.

Garda already said that they tried negotiating, but CATSA insisted on suspending her. CATSA has admitted to this. There's nothing to argue regarding this...

Yes, I have knowledge about contracts. I also have knowledge of torts - do you? :)

Your opinion is based on ignorance, because when faced with facts about the issue, you toss them aside because they don't fit your view.

You're also pathetically insulting with your "Cha-ching!" comment. Look at the facts and realize that she stuck with her principles despite being on unpaid suspension for 3 months. That's not much of a "cha-ching".

Still, I say good for her for standing up to CATSA's stupidity, and showing it to the whole country, so that others do not get treated unfairly like this. It seems CATSA refused to be reasonable until forced to by the outcry.


I have knowledge with contracts, I have knowledge of filing complaints/ chain of command, and I have knowledge with negotiations.

Gee, what do you think happened for 3 months? Complaints were filed, but went nowhere with CATSA. The next step would be the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and that's what happened.

Based on your previous comments, you seem to support CATSA's bigotted position.

You're the one who said "Right or Wrong"... i.e. you're saying people working for government agencies should be forced to be treated unfairly, even if it's wrong.

[mizunderstood]

Come on people. let's not fight... Anyone want a cookie???? I just made fresh santa cookies with sprinkles!!!

[Intrepid]

Here are some comments from Garda, from 2 different newspapers:


From The Toronto Star:
Garda, the private security firm, says it even approached CATSA to find out if it would make an allowance for her longer skirt.

"What they came back with was that they felt that the current policy they had with those alternatives addressed the concern that she had, and so for that reason they were not making a change to the policy for a longer skirt length," Garda spokesman Joe Gavaghan said.


From The National Post:
"We immediately went to (the federal authority) indicating what the situation was and asking them to please direct us as to what we could do.

They came back and had made the decision that there are two alternatives: Women can wear a skirt that is knee length or they can wear pants."


They tried, but CATSA refused to be reasonable.

Are you going to now say that Garda's comments are untrue, despite being direct quotes?

[mizunderstood]

Come on guys, I will even give you chocolate milk to go with the cookies! :) Let's agree to disagree.

[sanstu]

Come on guys, I will even give you chocolate milk to go with the cookies! :) Let's agree to disagree.

Sounds good!

[Intrepid]

Come on guys, I will even give you chocolate milk to go with the cookies! :) Let's agree to disagree.

Sounds good to me :p

I just did not like that people were insulting this lady for simply standing up for her rights... by implying that she was casually playing a "religion card beside her Visa" despite waiting 5 years and getting permission from Garda... and then spending 3 months on unpaid suspension trying to find a solution. Or the insult that she's a gold digger, when she was suspended without pay and has obviously not gained financially from this at all.

[trinity]

We're not talking about a major modification here, OR a security concern. I would be against it if her job required physical activity where safety could be compromised, like if she had to climb ladders or work around heavy equipment with moving cogs where the garment could become snagged and cause either injury to her or damage to the equipment.