Video: The $10 million headscarves
posted at 10:45 am on July 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Two Muslim women in Dearborn, Michigan have filed a lawsuit against a McDonalds franchisee for discrimination after allegedly refusing to hire them if they wore their headscarves at work, as well as making derogatory comments about the headscarves during the interview process. Laura Ingraham interviews author Hussein Ibish about the incident, for which the two women want $10 million in damages — which amounts to a lot of burgers:
Let’s assume that the facts are what the plaintiffs claim in this case, at least in the hiring decision if not the derogatory comments. Do headscarves present enough of a danger in the workplace to present a reasonable basis to deny the women employment? Most restaurants, as Ibish notes, mandate hair coverings anyway, especially for food preparers. Usually they issue hairnets, which could be worn under the scarves if needed. Scarves leave long ends trailing down the back, but those can be tied off or worn under the uniform shirt to keep the danger of catching fire at a minimum.
But why would two observant Muslim women want to work at McDonalds anyway? Their entire breakfast menu consists of one pork dish after another. Their breakfast sandwiches all either use Canadian bacon or pork sausage, as do their breakfast burritos. As employees, they would have to handle, cook, serve, and clean pork on a constant basis. Wouldn’t that cause more problems for the women than whether they wear headscarves or not?
This appears more to be a deliberate provocation than an honest attempt to find work. As Ibish says, a trial will work all of that out, but if it does turn out to be a public-relations stunt, hopefully the court will award court costs and attorney’s fees to the franchisee to discourage more of this in the future.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I bet its legal Hamburglers.
KW64 on July 26, 2008 at 10:52 AM
My first thought upon reading this in the local papers (I work in Dearborn) was that it is just another case of Muslim grievance mongering, a la the Flying Imams and the Minnesota cabbies. Especially with CAIR-MI involved.
On a side note, I sent the original article to Charles Johnson at LGF minutes after the story was posted the other day, thinking it was right up his alley, yet he has yet to post on the story. Thankfully, this is the second main blog site I read to have posted about this story. Maybe CJ is waiting on more info to come out or something.
Michael in MI on July 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Would the MCDonalds have to provide a pork-free environment due to religious reasons? Could the employees be excluded from handling pork unlike other employees.
Or…is it just the attractions of deep pockets.
originalpechanga on July 26, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Work at Burger King, you can have it your way.
Static on July 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Oh, and how did a minimum wage job become a $10 MILLION dollar worth lawsuit?
originalpechanga on July 26, 2008 at 10:57 AM
its about the uniform. its about food safety. its about the safety of the employees. the fact is you have to be dressed a certain way. they are unwilling to do so.
at hooters you have to wear a skimpy shirt and shorts, at a food establishment you have to wear a visor, hat or hair net. end of story.
trust me i know. the one place that needs to be asked about this is the local health department.
kara26 on July 26, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I wonder what kind of special sauce they would put in your burgers?
Of course it’s another act of grievance theater. Someday some one may declare a war on that tactic. But then these are American Muslims and we have been assured that they are different from all others.
BL@KBIRD on July 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Ahhh, but once/if they get hired, THEN they can sue for the other stuff:
Being made to serve pork – against my religion
Being made to cook pork – against my religion
Being made to handle pork – agsint my religion
Being made to LOOk AT pork – against my religion
Either way, McDonalds loses.
The same type of stuff has been done in Europe, incrementally, for years now. Look at Britain.
We need footbaths. I won’t transport people with alcohol.
McDonalds paid off some dumb chick for spilling hot coffee on her leg. The customer spilled the coffee herself, on her own leg, after being served, and McDonalds paid out.
One can only hope sanity prevails here. Precedent would say it won’t.
catmman on July 26, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Flying Imams v2.0
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:05 AM
This is clearly a set-up.
McDonald’s bad, Muslims good.
Your point about the pork is right on. One wonders where this would have gone had they been hired. They would likely have refused to handle any pork products and then have sued.
In any case, they would sue. That is the bottom line.
Laura asked about Hooters. What if they wanted to work at a gstrip club without disrobing?
In principle, what’s the difference?
drjohn on July 26, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Can we just kick all the Muslims out? Please?
Akzed on July 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Good idea. There they could get a Royale with Cheese.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Why don’t we pretend America is still a free country and employers can hire whoever they want? In a free country such a farcical would never occur. The iron age savages can wear their headscraf and the rest of us are also free to shun them. Better yet, let’s keep it a free country and deport the Moslems.
Don’t you love the look of arrogant hostility of the Moslem in the white scraf. Meet your new master, dhimmis.
Kalapana on July 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM
McDonalds wouldn’t pay me anymore because I quit showing up to work. I want $10 million for suffering and anguish.
I was thinking the same thing. If they got hired I figured they could claim religious discrimination because they were made to work.
NotCoach on July 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM
at least the coffee thing got over turned from millions paid to only, i think, 30 thousand or 300 thousand. can’t remember which one. for cup not being labeled hot and employees not helping and laughing about it. i know its still stupid, but was not as bad as millions. by the way coffee is hot and you cant wear your scarves.
kara26 on July 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM
“In a free country such a farcical TRIAL would never occur.” Oops.
Kalapana on July 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Not if the venue is local.
My local Chase bank recently had a teller wearing a tightly wound headscarf covering all but a small portion of her face. She wore no jewelry or make-up. Realizing her religion demanded modesty, and no unnecessary contact with non-related males, I decided not to impose myself on them any longer.
JiangxiDad on July 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I worked at Wendy’s when I was in high school and college. If things are the same as they were 15 years ago, I would not have hired these.
1. There are several pieces of equipment with movable parts (bun toaster) that the hijab could be caught in.
2. Where a head covering like that around the fryers presents a additional fire/burn hazard.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
That was a terrible interview by Laura. She has adopted the O’Reily style of cutting people off. Maybe she was short on time. I don’t know. The guy continued to try and agree with her on some points. But she did not want hear any of that. She was looking for an argument and didn’t get it.
multiuseless on July 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
“Excuse me, there’s a hijab in my Pork McDoodle.”
And an arm.
C’mon, put ‘em to work! The entertainment value of watching them being sucked into the various machinery would be priceless!
wccawa on July 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Hair nets are disposable and replaced with each use. Having them covered with a scarf which doesn’t meet standards concievably increases risk. It would be similar to me wearing my sweaty, dirty work cap over a hair net. Same type of issue as female Muslim medical students refusing to scrub above a certain point on the arm prior to doing surgery. They’ve got the tail wagging the dog. Religion trumps science.
a capella on July 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Fixed that for ya, Ed.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Muslims have replaced the blacks from the ’60s with respect to civil rights lawsuits. Funny……NOT.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Sensitivity to other cultures is a virtue. Glad to see you doing your part.
a capella on July 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Wait for it…
Frying Imams 1.0
wccawa on July 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I didn’t get a job at McDonald’s as a kid because they wouldn’t let me wear my Giants baseball cap. Is it too late to sue?
Kevin M on July 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM
This is what happens when your dimicratic leadership reduces your state’s economy to Third World status. Michigan is the shining example of what happens when liberals are in charge. They have no one to blame but themselves.
volsense on July 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I think your post is kind of way off topic since this stupidity can happen anywhere in the US. It is just more likely here because we have a large Muslim population, relatively speaking.
But the real reason I am responding to your post is that I just wanted to point out that we get what we get here in Michigan because we elected a Canadian to be governor. It’s in every Canadians DNA to raise taxes to confront any problem.
NotCoach on July 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM
MacHommad’s doesn’t supply prayer rugs either, or a tile inlay on the floor pointing to Mecca.
Limerick on July 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I have some relatives who eat Kosher food only. They insist on this even when in other people’s homes. Curiously, I find I don’t really care for kosher or halal food, and thus insist on the opposite. Surprisingly, this causes a bit of a stir. Still, not everyone can be as sensitive as I.
JiangxiDad on July 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Coming soon to the US…..
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Personally I don’t care to have someone who’s religion tells them to destroy me, PREPARING MY FREAKING FOOD. Who knows what poisons lurk under those scarves(I know there’s a lot of poison packed in their heads and that’s enough for caution right there)
Ernest on July 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
The same type of lawsuit was brought recently against the owner of a hip hairdressing salon in London. Not normally one for conspiracies, my bet is this is a planned action as one more (small, but telling) attack on the West.
JDPerren on July 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
10 Reasons Why You Should Hire A Muslim Woman
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
When will people wake up and realize that Muslim “culture” and any other culture are incompatible?
OldEnglish on July 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Isn’t sensitivity a two way street? How sensitive are Muslims to our laws and customs? And if a religion dictates that you must wear a large rubber penis on your head are we to just simply accept that and not think twice about the people walking around with large rubber penises on their heads?
NotCoach on July 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
So………let’s see what happens when a young Christian girl comes in wanted to where a crucifix and carry a Bible.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
So these two bimbo’s going to show up at Disneyland and claim they were illegally denied the chance to be Snow White and Cinderella because of their stupid scarves?
I would *love* to see CAIR’s attorneys go up against the Machine of the Mouse.
What is wrong with the water in Dearborn that, consistently, these idiocies keep coming out of that area? The citizenry there need to get out their baseball bats and teach the newcomers some lessons not only in how to be an American but also in simple manners.
P.S. Ever notice how plug-ugly the women in these cases are? Like wearing a scarf is the least of your worries, lady, if you’ve got a potato for a nose and squinty eyes.
NahnCee on July 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Wouldn’t that make an adherent of that religion a dick-head?
OldEnglish on July 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
As a man who walks around religiously with a rubber penis on his head, you have offended me. May the god of d!ldo str!ke you where you stand.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Yah, I think it’s a setup too. Obviously. I hope McDonalds does some research on CAIR and their tactics and then litigates the bejezuz out of this. An example, indeed.
Bob's Kid on July 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
On behalf of a capella, I will tell you he was speaking with tongue in cheek.
JiangxiDad on July 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM
The Hooters-burqa analogy is on the money. If this McD case is heard then the Hooters case must be heard unless judges want to take dress codes out of the hands of employers and dictate dress codes for every workplace on a case by case basis. Scary thing is, lots of judges dream of that kind of power; it’s why many of them pursue the job in the first place.
Buddahpundit on July 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM
JiangxiDad, I have followed many of your comments for months now and can guarantee that you and I would be great friends.
Ernest on July 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM
My bad for missing the point.
NotCoach on July 26, 2008 at 11:55 AM
If I apologize profusely and send you a $1.50 will you forgive me and sit down and eat some pork with me? I’ll even support the wholesale adoption of Phallic Law.
NotCoach on July 26, 2008 at 11:58 AM
It’s a date, you sexy beast.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Remember the book “Governance in the Wilderness”, the how-to book to wage and win global jihad. — Live apart make yourself distinct. Attack the non-muslims in every way large and small on every front. Allow no peace no refuge from jihad until people are so miserable they submit. — Thus, they beleive everyone will come to their heretic brand of Islam just to find some degree of peace.
Using our legal system to bring down our society is perfectly in line with this concept.
KW64 on July 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I think of that poor shop owner in London who got hit with a massive fine when she wouldn’t hire as a hair stylist in her funky salon a muslim woman who insisted on covering her hair.
Blake on July 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
McDonald’s meat is not halal, so these morons would have filed a lawsuit declaring that they didn’t have to touch any of the meat (or anything that touched the meat) if they had been given the jobs.
People like this ought to be tossed out of this country, never to return.
progressoverpeace on July 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Has anyone else noticed that we never heard a word out of muslims in America until after 9/11? We used to see arab organizations, like the arab anti-defamation league, but after 9/11 we have not seen any arab orgs. Just muslim orgs. Why is that? Hmmmm …
progressoverpeace on July 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
“We don’t have a lot of women in America wearing burqas…”
This guy should visit West Philly. Which relates to a comment previously made in this thread about Muslims replacing 60’s blacks in terms of civil rights lawsuits. In a number of cases, they’re actually one and the same.
Mr Tips on July 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM
This IS the Soft Jihad. These are the ‘peaceful’ muslims we are so often preached to about.
bikermailman on July 26, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Isn’t sensitivity a two way street?
Ummm, no. Not really. Not if you’re a Muslim.
progressoverpeace on July 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM
McDonald’s has meat? Since when?
catmman on July 26, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Straight up truth,
Blacks and Hispanics are the most racist groups in the USA today, and the most grievance oriented. The media and Hollywood are their enablers, as are left wing, liberal Democrats, who happen to also be quite racist, always seeing racism at every turn, and allowing themselves to behavior and speak in disrespectful, racist terms while painting themselves as the heroes of the “minorities,” which they truly are NOT!
Nevertheless, these women are black and now Muslims, which makes them part of an elite club, a combination of two self identifying grievance, victim groups, always willing to attack Caucasians, US citizens, Asians-Orientals, and getting a free pass on it – “xenophobe” “Islamophobe,” “racist” and all the other phony, exaggerated, fabricated accusations – so it is not a surprise that these black + Muslim individuals would pull such a stunt.
Unfortunately this is the political-ideological climate of our time and they will get attention and sympathy from those who have control of the microphone, even though the entire ordeal is nonsense!
How convenient it must be to scream that you are somehow discriminated against or being treated unfairly based on your religion or race or style of dress after you fail to get a job!
Wasting time, causing trouble, and being rewarded for underperforming.
Until such cacophonous, discordant behavior and mindset is ignored and put in its place, this type of divisive, self centered, “entitlement” behavior will continue to manifest and snow ball, dragging down our society and forcing more artificial behavioral dictates and laws, encumbering us all.
William2006 on July 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Forget about the pork, think about their demands for: footwashing baths; no, I won’t wash above my wrists; I need to have the prayer call announced; we need a minarette to announce the prayer call. Btw, did we forget that they will have to stop work several times and put out their prayer rugs to pray. Probably right at the start of the ordering line.
I am noticing an increasing call to get rid of muslims, if only that were possible. But at least, let’s stop accepting any more of them.
TimothyJ on July 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Not sure where you get your stats William2006, about blacks and Hispanics being the most racist. I think all races have dipped a toe in that pool.
My thought was more on the line of, if their scarves are so important to them, why are they applying there in the first place. Is McDonald’s the only employer in the area? The scarves seem to be more of a tool than they are of sacred significance. I maybe digressing, but what if a member of the KKK came in to apply with their hood on. Could they sue if not given a job due to their wearing a hood?
oakpack on July 26, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Speaking as a business owner, can someone tell me what McDonalds did or didn’t do that could be construed as wrong or worth of any type of lawsuit. They are the employer, they decide who, what, where and when they are going to employ. Honestly, in this day and age, have Muslims working for you is a lose lose situation. They are generally not liked by most of us in America do to their desire to not assimilate, and when they do “assimilate” their definition pretty much involves foot baths, burquas etc. Sorry folks, McDonalds did nothing wrong here but look out for it’s best interests. The shareholders should be happy.
rayvet on July 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Their entire breakfast menu consists of one pork dish after another. Their breakfast sandwiches all either use Canadian bacon or pork sausage, as do their breakfast burritos. As employees, they would have to handle, cook, serve, and clean pork on a constant basis. Wouldn’t that cause more problems for the women than whether they wear headscarves or not?
Trust me, the NEXT lawsuit will be to force McDonald’s to stop serviing Pork products, because it’s offensive to Muslims, and the next on after that, to stop allowing Seeing Eye Dogs into McDonlds….etc…
The pattern has already been established elsewhere….
Start fitting your womenfolk for Burqa’s, Sharia is coming….
Dale in Atlanta on July 26, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I thought the fact the employers can have employees wear whatever uniform they choose was settled law.
tarpon on July 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM
They can put them in charge of the french fries and the coffee
Ropera on July 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM
McDonald’s does not have my sympathy. They alienated this minority, but they have bent over backwards to court a more politically correct one: the homosexual lobby. According to the American Family Association, McD’s has given tens of thousands of dollars, as well as hearty corporate endorsements, to a variety of militant homosexual groups.
jgapinoy on July 26, 2008 at 4:07 PM
It isn’t just breakfast, but lunch and dinner as well. I wonder what the Koran say about handling horse meat?
Kafir on July 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Litigacious Jihad.
Maquis on July 26, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I saw this last night and thought the same thing. How would these women handle all the pork products sold? There’s sausage,ham and bacon sold plus they would be demanding foot baths installed. The scarves are a safety issue too.
On another note..no way would these women get hired at Hooters. ugh I cant see it. Even Hussein Ibish agreed these women wouldnt be fit to work at Hoooters AND he said the cabbies who wont pick up people with seeing eye dogs or alcohol should get another job.
This is totally bogus!
becki51758 on July 26, 2008 at 4:47 PM
McDonalds better fight this all the way. If I see these freaks wearing their weird scarves at the counter I’ll turn around and walk out. McDonalds is an American icon. If these “ladies” want to work at McD’s then they need to get over it and get rid of the stupid looking flea catcher.
warriorlawyer on July 26, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Head scarves are not required by Islam. These women are challenging and disrespectful of American culture (you know, that country they live in?), as well as of the laws which protect the employer’s right to require adherence to the uniform that is not only designed to be the safest and most functional one, but also the particular “look” McDonald’s wants to promote.
Connie on July 26, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Thanks, I never knew that I was going against my DNA when I try to make sure the candidate that wants to lower taxes up here gets elected. Better give that up.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on July 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM
My VFW is required to have people wear hair nets or hats… tight to the body… no free flowing garb… because we have a flat grill and deep fryers.. our insurance requires that. Screw Moslems who think their religion supersedes our laws. I am Catholic and I know there are places I can’t wear a crucifix or scapular. I accept that. If they win the lawsuit, then I can be a multimillionaire.
MNDavenotPC on July 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
That could be because no-one in McDonalds is Muslim. However ….
OldEnglish on July 26, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I believe all McDonald employees should embrace the towels. Let’s start with Ronald.
saved on July 26, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Bill Warner is writing a primer for the average joe to use in debate.
Debating About Islam – Part 1
Connie on July 26, 2008 at 7:46 PM
If I owned a restaurant I would add lard to every recipe and say so on the menu.
TheSitRep on July 26, 2008 at 11:58 PM
I don’t know if this interests you, but I’ve developed my own little cheat-sheet of islam. To me, the essence and character of the ideology (and its fundamental clash with Western culture) is fully captured from a minimal number of seemingly insignificant points:
1) Islam means ’submission’.
2) Muslims must kiss the ground 5 times a day.
3) Apostasy is punishable by death.
4) The islamic calendar is lunar and inserting any intercalaries is punishable by death.
5) Islam has no days of rest.
These are very simple pieces of islam that offer, IMO, very deep insights into the fundamental differences between islam and Western culture. These points also illustrate how islam views and treats its adherents.
The final point about islam, and perhaps the most important, is what Pope Benedict got hassled for quoting – islam has introduced no new ideas. There is nothing original in islam. It just takes from Judaism and Christianity (and then calls Jews and Christians liars for not agreeing with the new islamic plagiarized version) and brings nothing else – except the liberal use of violence to spread the ideology.
This is how I view islam, at least.
progressoverpeace on July 27, 2008 at 1:15 AM
If a federal judge doesn’t toss this case, then the judge should be tossed!
As far as CAIR trotting out, the whole lot should spend the remainder of the war on terror, in Gitmo!
byteshredder on July 27, 2008 at 2:00 AM
That comment raises a question about the narcissistic megalomaniac FraudBama. He left Islam, so why haven’t the Muslimaniacs issued a D-warrant against him? Instead, they are his main source of campaign funding! Why, because IMO, he’s an intellectual dishonest closet Muslim!
byteshredder on July 27, 2008 at 2:09 AM
Very interesting question, byteshredder. I see that Robert Spencer has done an article on that exact point. He doesn’t come to any firm conclusions, but your question makes me wonder, especially when it comes to BHO dealing with Iran and Saudi Arabia.
progressoverpeace on July 27, 2008 at 4:02 AM
You see, that is what’s known in the shakedown business as “Plan B”. If you’re hired in spite of the head scarves, you can later sue if McDonalds shows insensitivity to your religion by not voluntarily putting itself out of business by eliminating their entire breakfast menu.
Would you like to supersize your bowl of oatmeal?
ynot4tony2 on July 27, 2008 at 1:56 PM
If I saw these two working at MickieD’s, I’d make them serve me every pork dish on the menu.
Big John on July 27, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Robert Spencer is an absolute jewel, and very highly respected for his insight on Islamic studies, and history.
Because of the conflicts and missing in data, It hasn’t been a simple chore to research Obama’s past. Many good people are doing all they can to uncover this wannabe emperor, and are running into stonewall, after stonewall. They claim, that some known info on him have mysteriously disappeared!
byteshredder on July 27, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Laura was pretty good.
That being said, “What happened to liberty? Doesn’t the owner have the liberty to choose what their employees will wear if they want to stay employed?”
Tim Burton on July 27, 2008 at 7:57 PM
I’m guessing that as soon as they were hired, they were going to start agitating that McDonalds provide them with a port free working environment.
MarkTheGreat on July 28, 2008 at 7:52 AM
Comment pages: