Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
S/O "No Skirts" Policy VS No pants policy in frum agencies
1  2  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother
Firebrick


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 9:48 am
An orthodox woman is suing a hospital over their "no skirts" policy because she believes that its religious discrimination. Many people have said that they should make an exception for her because of her religious beliefs even if it may be a liability for the hospital. My question is, should Frum agencies/companies who have religious dress codes for their employees (I.e. skirts for female employees etc.) make exceptions for non-frum/secular employees who do not wish to adhere to religious dress codes?
Back to top

zaq




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 10:10 am
No. Because forcing a frum woman to wear pants violates her religion; requiring a secular woman to wear skirts may annoy her but does not violate her religion. The exception would be if her religion required her to wear pants. Wearing a long tunic over the pants, which many Moslem women do, would solve that problem.
Back to top

amother
Firebrick


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 10:35 am
zaq wrote:
No. Because forcing a frum woman to wear pants violates her religion; requiring a secular woman to wear skirts may annoy her but does not violate her religion. The exception would be if her religion required her to wear pants. Wearing a long tunic over the pants, which many Moslem women do, would solve that problem.

But isnt it a chillul Hashem to force non-religious people to adhere to a religious dress code? Not to mention that it fosters resentment which we want to avoid as well especially given that we are in Galus and dont want to do anything to hurt our relationship with the secular world. Why would you want to jeopardize that by having double standards?
Back to top

pause




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 10:37 am
amother wrote:
But isnt it a chillul Hashem to force non-religious people to adhere to a dress code? Not to mention that it fosters resentment which we want to avoid as well especially given that we are in Galus and dont want to do anything to hurt our relationship with the secular world. Why would you want to jeopardize that by having double standards?

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

I'm curious if you really believe all the BS you're saying here.
Back to top

amother
Firebrick


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 10:41 am
pause wrote:
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

I'm curious if you really believe all the BS you're saying here.

Why is that BS? Many secular people resent being forced to wear a religious dress code if they work for Jewish agencies. These individuals are not hired to work in a religious capacity (Rabbi, religious teacher, etc) so the why are the agencies forcing them to adhere to a religious dress code?
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 10:51 am
amother wrote:
But isnt it a chillul Hashem to force non-religious people to adhere to a religious dress code? Not to mention that it fosters resentment which we want to avoid as well especially given that we are in Galus and dont want to do anything to hurt our relationship with the secular world. Why would you want to jeopardize that by having double standards?

Is a "skirts only" policy necessarily a religious requirement? Many offices have dress codes that require conservative dress.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 10:58 am
DrMom wrote:
Is a "skirts only" policy necessarily a religious requirement? Many offices have dress codes that require conservative dress.


Pants are generally accepted as conservative attire for women.

In the paramedic case, the hospital claimed that skirts would impede her ability to safely do her job. Just like someone was discussing white water rafting, and that its not safe to wear a skirt on some types of excursions.

Requiring people to adhere to religious obligations they don't share is different.
Back to top

zaq




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 11:00 am
amother wrote:
But isnt it a chillul Hashem to force non-religious people to adhere to a religious dress code? Not to mention that it fosters resentment which we want to avoid as well especially given that we are in Galus and dont want to do anything to hurt our relationship with the secular world. Why would you want to jeopardize that by having double standards?


1. Look up the definition of "Chillul Hashem". This isn't it.
2. Doesn't it foster resentment when an employer requires its employees to wear formal business attire or adhere to any sort of dress code?
3. How is requiring all employees to adhere to the same dress code "having double standards"? It seems to me that a double standard is involved if an employer requires its observant personnel to adhere to a certain dress code while allowing nonreligious personnel to wear whatever they please.
4. Study history. Acquiescing to the demands of the secular world doesn't make them like us one bit more.
Back to top

amother
cornflower


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 11:06 am
A private Jewish school would be practicing discrimination if it only hired Jewish people to teach secular subjects.

The school has a right to create the overall environment for its pupils to be taught in. This includes the dress the teachers.

The paramedic accepted a job knowing the dress code requirements, and is now suing for damages. Not a lawyer - but I'd like to understand what her damages are. Its evident given her employment history that there are other opportunities for paramedics to work in skirts.
Back to top

tigerwife




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 11:21 am
amother wrote:
A private Jewish school would be practicing discrimination if it only hired Jewish people to teach secular subjects.

The school has a right to create the overall environment for its pupils to be taught in. This includes the dress the teachers.

The paramedic accepted a job knowing the dress code requirements, and is now suing for damages. Not a lawyer - but I'd like to understand what her damages are. Its evident given her employment history that there are other opportunities for paramedics to work in skirts.


I'm curious as well, especially since I know frum women who have a heter to wear the pant scrubs (BY style- one would wear a shell under her top to make sure her neckline and elbows are covered while wearing pant scrubs). They only wear them e.g. During surgery, not just to hang out.
Back to top

amother
Burlywood


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 11:32 am
zaq wrote:
1. Look up the definition of "Chillul Hashem". This isn't it.
2. Doesn't it foster resentment when an employer requires its employees to wear formal business attire or adhere to any sort of dress code?
3. How is requiring all employees to adhere to the same dress code "having double standards"? It seems to me that a double standard is involved if an employer requires its observant personnel to adhere to a certain dress code while allowing nonreligious personnel to wear whatever they please.
4. Study history. Acquiescing to the demands of the secular world doesn't make them like us one bit more.

I work for a Jewish agency that provides free, tax-funded services to children in their homes. The agency forces their secular employees to wear skirts when providing these services which is a huge chillul Hashem considering that it a tax-funded service. And it's a double standard too in that religious Jews expect to be accommodated by secular agencies but they refuse to accommodate secular people who they pay with govt money in violation of church and state and the first amendment. Why is that acceptable?
Back to top

iriska_meller




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 11:44 am
In the secular world, most serious companies have a dress code, often meant to encourage modest/appropriate dress. It will spell out things like no cleavage, no jeans, no bare legs, no shorts, no mini skirts, no visible tattoos etc. I'm pretty sure as an employer you are free to set whatever dress code you want. Religion or no.
Back to top

zaq




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 11:55 am
iriska_meller wrote:
I'm pretty sure as an employer you are free to set whatever dress code you want. Religion or no.


Until someone sues you.
Back to top

amother
cornflower


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 12:00 pm
amother wrote:
I work for a Jewish agency that provides free, tax-funded services to children in their homes. The agency forces their secular employees to wear skirts when providing these services which is a huge chillul Hashem considering that it a tax-funded service. And it's a double standard too in that religious Jews expect to be accommodated by secular agencies but they refuse to accommodate secular people who they pay with govt money in violation of church and state and the first amendment. Why is that acceptable?


what is the chillul Hashem here?

Hey employee - you are working for a Jewish agency that provides (I assume some sort of social) services in a Jewish home. We want to make our clientele feel as comfortable as possible, and our experience shows that our clientele are more comfortable with people who dress in skirts.
Back to top

Raisin




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 12:09 pm
iriska_meller wrote:
In the secular world, most serious companies have a dress code, often meant to encourage modest/appropriate dress. It will spell out things like no cleavage, no jeans, no bare legs, no shorts, no mini skirts, no visible tattoos etc. I'm pretty sure as an employer you are free to set whatever dress code you want. Religion or no.


Some companies even requre women to wear high heels. Understandably some women have sued over this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36265545
Back to top

amother
Burlywood


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 12:15 pm
amother wrote:
what is the chillul Hashem here?

Hey employee - you are working for a Jewish agency that provides (I assume some sort of social) services in a Jewish home. We want to make our clientele feel as comfortable as possible, and our experience shows that our clientele are more comfortable with people who dress in skirts.

Most, if not all, of these kids go to public school and are exposed to different people who are not like them. If they can be comfortable around secular people at public school then why would they not be comfortable around secular people at home? And why is it okay for an agency to force a religious dress code onto secular people while using tax-funded money? If you want to force a religious dress code then taking money from taxpayers looks like the govt is supporting religion which is a violation of the first amendment and separation of church and state. So if an agency wants to enforce a religious dress code (as opposed to a standard professional dress code, I.e. no bikini or short skirts, etc) then why take money from the govt?
Back to top

mamaleh




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 12:24 pm
amother wrote:
Most, if not all, of these kids go to public school and are exposed to different people who are not like them. If they can be comfortable around secular people at public school then why would they not be comfortable around secular people at home? And why is it okay for an agency to force a religious dress code onto secular people while using tax-funded money? If you want to force a religious dress code then taking money from taxpayers looks like the govt is supporting religion which is a violation of the first amendment and separation of church and state. So if an agency wants to enforce a religious dress code (as opposed to a standard professional dress code, I.e. no bikini or short skirts, etc) then why take money from the govt?


The children might go to public school but these people are going into their homes, not their schools. Respecting the customer's values in their homes is an important aspect of customer service. If most/all of the homes being serviced by this company are religious then it makes sense to require employees to dress in a manner that respects their sensitivities.

If the agency mainly served a culture/ religion that required removing shoes when entering the home, would you have a problem with the agency requiring its employees to remove their shoes when entering these homes? Why is this different?

The fact that the agency is owned by Jews has nothing to do with it. I would hope that any good agency that served a particular community would be sensitive to their culture and standards.
Back to top

debsey




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 12:27 pm
amother wrote:
But isnt it a chillul Hashem to force non-religious people to adhere to a religious dress code? Not to mention that it fosters resentment which we want to avoid as well especially given that we are in Galus and dont want to do anything to hurt our relationship with the secular world. Why would you want to jeopardize that by having double standards?


I'm not sure about the bolded statement.

We don't want to do unnecessary things to hurt our relationship with the secular world. For some secular people, simply seeing a tznius woman or a man with a beard walking down the street is already offensive. If simply seeing a Jew hurts someone's sensitivities, that's not really my problem. If I build a Succah on the sidewalk, impeding my neighbors, that is my problem. There's a difference.

A dress code is an acceptable business practice in many businesses. There is no crisis of conscience involved in following one. That's different than making someone violate religious principles for their job. A Sikh police officer should be allowed to wear a beard or turban. A Muslim nurse should be allowed to wear a hijab. An Orthodox Jew should be allowed to wear a skirt. Or peyos. etc.
Back to top

debsey




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 12:30 pm
amother wrote:
A private Jewish school would be practicing discrimination if it only hired Jewish people to teach secular subjects.

The school has a right to create the overall environment for its pupils to be taught in. This includes the dress the teachers.

The paramedic accepted a job knowing the dress code requirements, and is now suing for damages. Not a lawyer - but I'd like to understand what her damages are. Its evident given her employment history that there are other opportunities for paramedics to work in skirts.


They hired her, thereby preventing her from taking on other employment, then terminated her, not based on performance, but based on following a dress code that is A) Not a universal standard of safety and B) would constitute a violation of her religious principles if followed.

She's suing for wrongful termination. That's well within the purview. IMHO, she has a good case, and I'll be watching closely.

My prediction is that it will be settled out of court, she will receive relatively low compensation + costs, and will be reinstated in her job.
Back to top

amother
Burlywood


 

Post Fri, May 26 2017, 12:41 pm
mamaleh wrote:
The children might go to public school but these people are going into their homes, not their schools. Respecting the customer's values in their homes is an important aspect of customer service. If most/all of the homes being serviced by this company are religious then it makes sense to require employees to dress in a manner that respects their sensitivities.

If the agency mainly served a culture/ religion that required removing shoes when entering the home, would you have a problem with the agency requiring its employees to remove their shoes when entering these homes? Why is this different?

The fact that the agency is owned by Jews has nothing to do with it. I would hope that any good agency that served a particular community would be sensitive to their culture and standards.

You are conflating religion with culture. It is not culturally required for Jewish women to wear a skirt,it is only an Orthodox requirement and therefore becomes a religious cusom rather then a cultural custom and the govt cannot legally enforce a religious custom. And lots of these kids get services from multiple agencies and other agencies do not enforce a religious dress code bc it's illegal to do that while accepting govt funding. So service providers do wear pants in the kids home and there is nothing anyone can do about it other than pay for services out of pocket which is expensive. Why is it acceptable for a Jewish agency to enforce a religious dress code onto secular employees using govt funding to pay for it? Would you be okay if Muslims do it and force their secular employees to wear hijabs using govt money to pay for the services?
Back to top
Page 1 of 2 1  2  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
I love frum fashion for kids
by amother
145 Today at 6:37 pm View last post
What knapsacks are "in" for upcoming 9th grade?
by amother
3 Today at 5:33 pm View last post
"Affordable" clothing for an adult
by amother
3 Today at 3:50 pm View last post
Shabbos pants for elementary boys
by amother
11 Today at 7:30 am View last post
Where to get 44"/48" mattresses/platform beds 1 Yesterday at 10:33 am View last post