Clinic to Muslim doctor: Its policy bars headscarf

[HowHasItComeToThis]

Source: http://www.ap.org/


Clinic to Muslim doctor: Its policy bars headscarf

Dr. Hena Zaki poses for a photo in her home, Friday Oct. 30, 2009, in Plano, AP – Dr. Hena Zaki poses for a photo in her home, Friday Oct. 30, 2009, in Plano, Texas. The young Muslim …
Fri Oct 30, 9:30 pm ET

DALLAS – A Muslim doctor interviewing for a job at a suburban Dallas medical clinic says officials there told her she couldn't wear her headscarf in the workplace.

Dr. Hena Zaki of Plano, Texas, said Friday that she was shocked when CareNow officials told her that a no-hat policy extended to her hijab.

The 29-year-old doctor wants an apology and a change in CareNow's policy.

However, CareNow President Tim Miller says he sees nothing wrong with the policy and feels no need to apologize. In a statement, his company says it does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin in employment decisions.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations calls CareNow's policy "a blatant violation" of federal law.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_re_us/us_doctor_no_headscarf;_ylt=AuNZIdFklIazqMY95kSOsS6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNxbDBuMTl2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDMxL3VzX2RvY3Rvcl9ub19oZWFkc2NhcmYEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwMzBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5f

---

IS SHE HERE ON H1B?

[madeline_con]

1. "... does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion .."

That is definitely religious discrimination.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Not if it interferes with preferred professional practice

Some muslims in the medical field in UK have refused to scrub to their elbows for religious reasons.

[madeline_con]

6. This is not scrubbing. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

56. No evidence that this was the problem here,

And the medics in the UK whom you mention are a tiny minority. The big problem re medical hygiene in the UK has been a certain general lack of cultural (British, not Muslim) concern for ultra-high standards of cleanliness, combined with the time-pressures on doctors resulting in a temptation to skimp on the time spent washing. It's changed quite a bit for the better since the big public emphasis on the dangers of MRSA and now the swine flu; but it's not always perfect.

[Bobbieo]

36. Are there any female Muslim Doctors in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

[LeftishBrit]

57. In Saudi Arabia there certainly are.

Difficult to enforce rigid gender segregation without having women doctors, come to think of it.

Here's a link to an article about the topic:


doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2004.06.008


Copyright © 2004 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Saudi women doctors: gender and careers within Wahhabic Islam and a ‘westernised’ work culture
Girija Vidyasagar and David M. Rea

Centre for Health Economics and Policy Studies, School of Health Science, University of Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK


Available online 26 August 2004.

Sypnosis
This paper reports on the experience of 28 Saudi women doctors working in Saudi Arabia. It demonstrates the problems they encountered, many of which they share with counterparts elsewhere. In addition, they have also had to deal with problems peculiar to Saudi society: a constitution and legal system that sanctions male superiority, and segregation of the sexes in all areas of life. This context affected their choice of specialty, their work alongside male colleagues, and their promotion prospects.

Many had encountered what was described as a western culture at work, or in their overseas training. They valued many aspects of this, such as promotion being based on merit, but did not all expect these aspects of western culture to prevail within their own context.

Despite the constraints, the older women doctors had achieved professional success and satisfaction—and the younger doctors expect professional success also.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. there used to be in afghanistan pre-taliban

[Hannah Bell]

108. yes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Federal law requires reasonable accommodation, but this is too much

There have been complaints in the UK that Sharia impaired medical personnel would not expose their arms needed to do a full scrub, even in facilities with MSRA problems.

Sorry, the patient and preferred professional practices come first.

[tammywammy]

5. Not scrubbing in properly would be a health concern

Wearing the scarf is not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

Given the events from the UK and some not medical related nonsense in Minn

and elsewhere, I would like to know how far the person whining would push their religion over professional practice. The article does not address it.

[tammywammy]

10. It doesn't sound like it even got that far

And considering I know quite a few Muslims that went through medical school (I knew them when they were in school still) that is not something that ever came up as something they would refuse to do.

That would clearly be a health concern, not religious discrimination which refusing to allow her to wear her scarf is.

[Hepburn]

42. Scarf which has been worn on the street ~~ now in the OR instead of OR head gear...

...ummmmmmmm....no.

[JonQ]

59. But it's a religious garment

So god, or allah, or yehweh or whatever will keep the evil disease causing demons from jumping out of it and possessing healthy people. Or at least, healthy people that are pure of heart.

As everyone knows trivial religious decorations trump micro-biology.

[tammywammy]

76. Not this particular doctor in the story

CareNow is a walk in clinic, she's like a general practitioner. If she was going into surgery, then yes it could be brought up as a health concern.

[No Elephants]

95. Religion requires her to cover her hair. The covering does not have to be a scarf. It could be a

surgical cap, specially made, if necessary to cover every bit of hair, as some Muslims demand.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Here's an idea for all Islamophobic types...

Don't use Muslim doctors. That way they don't need to whine about their concerns (only aimed at Muslims, of course) about how they're so sure their religion will conflict with their professionalism...

[JonQ]

61. So people should be able to request doctors based on religion?

You wouldn't see an issue with that?

And does the fact that is a religious decoration mean that basic rules of sanitation don't apply? That germs will not be carried in it because allah won't allow it?

Not tolerating a potentially harmful religious practice =! hating everyone practicing that religion.

If my doctor decided he was going to pray over me instead of give me medicine I would say he should be fired, but I have no problem with everyone of his religion. He just should be able to pull that nonsense in a hospital. Religious tolerance doesn't mean we have to tolerate every aspect of every religion.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. It'd solve the concerns of the poster I was replying to n/t

[No Elephants]

96. Why, in your mind, are scarves necessarily more germ filled than any

other article of clothing? I was in intensive care and people visited me in things they had worn outside. Even my nurses wore shoes, jewelry, cardigans etc. they'd worn from home.

[laughingliberal]

103. Just after I became an RN, they began doing away with nursing caps

The reason being they were found to be vehicles for microbes. We would bend over a patient to listen to their chest or some such thing, they'd cough on the cap. On to the next patient...you get the drift. I'd like to know if all head gear is prohibited. If so, this is not a religious thing.

[hedgehog]

119. I was looking up the history of the head covers worn by nursing sisters

when I came across several sites suggesting this is the next thing for some evangelical Christians. http://home.mindspring.com/~erin_renee/id2.html

http://www.candleonthehill.net/store/catalog.php?category=15

[WriteDown]

46. Why should she be able to wear a scarf if I can't wear a hat?

Let's open it up to everybody.

[tammywammy]

13. BTW

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=3413

Distorted media reports on Muslim doctors’ hygiene widely condemned

By Elham Asaad Buaras

“Inaccurate and Islamophobic and racist.” That is the verdict of Liverpool’s largest children’s hospital over claims that its Muslim medics protested against new hygiene guidelines on religious grounds.

The Liverpool Echo reported that female Muslim medical students at the Alder Hey hospital “objected to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands and removing arm coverings in theatre, claiming it is regarded as immodest.”
The story which first appeared online on February 26 with the headline ‘Muslim Medics in Alder Hey Stand-Off’ , was subsequently picked up by The Daily Mail which reported that ‘Muslim Medics refuse to roll up their sleeves in hygiene crack down - because it’s against their religion’, whist The Daily Telegraph alleged that ‘Female Muslim medics “disobey hygiene rules”’.

-snip-

Speaking to The Muslim News, a spokesperson for The Royal Liverpool Children’s NHS Trust fervently refuted the allegations made in The Liverpool Echo, which she said left staff and students “very distressed”.

“The Liverpool Echo ran a story that was frankly misleading, inaccurate, untrue and racist in our view. We have taken this up with them and made a formal complaint about their very poor covering of this subject, which has no foundation or substance to it.

“Not a single student or medic asked not to scrub. In terms of the arm covering, we provide long surgical gloves that stretch to the elbow, and no student refused to wear them.”

-snip-

[Wizard777]

30. I had an Indian doctor operate on me. He had never taken a bath in his entire life.

The Hospital required him to inform his patients of this and give them the option to get another surgeon. I let him operate. He was the top surgeon in the world in his field. By my cultural standards I could have been in cleaners hands. But I couldn't have been in better hands.

[Doremus]

52. Bizarre.

I didn't realize there was a sect that forbids bathing.

Some religious dogma is downright weird.

[Robb]

53. Sort of the anti-Baptists, I guess. nt

[No Elephants]

55. LOL.

[kestrel91316]

67. It probably just forbade immersion in water, and not sponge baths

(which, if done properly, get you very clean) and/or showers.

[Wizard777]

72. It forbade killing even microbial life.

He explained that if they got visibly dirty or had to wash something off of them. They used oils. Not soap and water. The oils did not kill the microbes. He said it was much better for the skin than soap and water also.

[kestrel91316]

73. Maybe he was a Jain. My niece's DBF is from a Jain family but they

don't carry it that far, lol. And no face masks, either. They are vegetarians.

[Wizard777]

70. He was Hindu. They pretty much believe all life is sacred. Even microbial life.

Basically what he explained to me was that he practices microbial cleanliness. He says there are good microbes and bad microbes. Bad microbe cause odors and good microbes eat the bad microbes. He says why we need deodorants and perfumes is because we kill the good microbes by bathing. Before the good microbes develop and begin eating the bad microbes. The bad microbes have to establish themselves first. That's why we stink if we don't bathe. That's the bad microbes establishing themselves. We usually bathe before the good microbes establish themselves and begin eating the bad microbes. For a guy that has never bathed. He didn't really stink. He had a musky patchouli type smell. But it wasn't as profuse as a patchouli wearing hippie. You can smell them two or three blocks before you can actually see them. With the surgeon you had to be real close to him to smell it and even then it was faint. But he had sued the hospital for violation of his first amendment right. They tried to prevent him from practicing there because of that. So that just goes to show how far the courts will go to accommodate the free exercise of religion.

[No Elephants]

79. How did he acquire a First Amendment rights against a hospital?

BTW, what was his surname and the name of the hospital? With those two names, I could find the case. I'd love to read it.

Meanwhile, maybe I'll try googling. I should find it that way, too. After all, how many First Amendment cases could there possibly be where a court finds a first amendment right against a hospital on behalf of a doctor who never washes his hands?

However, pending finding the case, I am hanging on to a "healthy" dose of skepticism about the existence of this case.

On edit: Google does not reveal the existence of any such case. I think he fibbed to you about this cour case. I don't think it ever happened.

[RobinA]

98. In a World

where the corresponding microbial world makes judgements as to "good" and "bad" microbes and makes sure to oust the "bad" microbes if given enough time, I don't find it surprising that a doctor has 1st Amendment rights against a hospital. In fact, it might be the case that given the microbes' understanding of "good" and "bad," the microbes may even be actual judges, maybe even lawyers.

[Wizard777]

112. If you think an employer cannot be sued for religious discrimination you are sadly mistaken.

I went those rounds with my former employer. The companies lawyers advised them back down. There was a slim chance they would win the first round. But I would prevail at SCOTUS and that's all that really matters.

[liberalpragmatist]

81. Must be some unusual Hindu sect

I'm Hindu and I've never heard of anybody not bathing; if anything Indians are obsessed with bathing, though their standards for public cleanliness versus personal hygiene, are quite low.

[tammywammy]

82. I have many Hindu friends and I've never heard of anything like that either. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. thats because its not common or even hindu. its a part of a jain sect in india

who do this

[tammywammy]

89. Then that would explain why I've never heard of it.

Thanks for the info. :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

90. welcome. i am pretty sure in my entire life i have never met an indian who didnt bathe

unless they were homeless or mentally ill or something. there are not very many jains and this is a small small sect.

[tammywammy]

93. Yeah, I'd have to say all of my Indian friends bathe regularly

Well really, ALL my friends bathe regularly.

Did you ever read "Wicked"? That's what I first thought of Elphaba washing herself in oil. :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. in bengal, culturally we have to bathe twice a day.

:)

[Wizard777]

111. There are far more Jain's than Zoroastrians.

Jain's are about 5 million. We Zoroastrians recently dipped below 1 million. Which is very interesting in apocalyptic terms. The Zoroastrian and Christian apocalypses are converging. The Zoroastrian apocalypse is simple. A comet strikes the earth. In the Christian apocalypse if when John said, In the final days God's truly faithful will number 10,000. If he was referring to Zoroastrians. God's first worshipers still with him in the final days. Our Numbers should be about 10,000 in 2036 when Apophis comes very close to the earth. It'll actually pass between our satellites and earth. They say it'll be a near miss. But I think it's gonna hit. An Asteroid strike could set the stage for the Christian Apocalypse to play out. A lil off subject. Well okay a lot. But I thought you might find it interesting.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

116. while there are more jains, most jains bathe. there is a tiny jain sect

who may not, because of not wanting to harm microbes

[Wizard777]

118. It's kinda like being vegetarian. It's how far you are willing to take the concept.

Some vegans don't eat meat but they will eat dairy and eggs. Those are your I don't eat anything with a face Vegans. Eggs and dairy don't have faces. Then you have the all out vegans that won't eat anything that comes from an animal. Then you have the hard core vegan that won't even eat vegetables than have been fertilized by animal manure. Religious and political beliefs are a lot alike in many ways. This is one of them. Some Jain's respect human and animal life. But not vegetative life. Then there are Jain that respect human, animal and vegetative life. They won't even walk on grass because they don't want to hurt it. Then you have this sect that even respects cellular and microbial life. If they found a new form of life on Mars. They would respect that too. The Wests view of mainstream religion really messes up most peoples ability to understand commitment and devotion to religion. Mainstream religion seems to be defined by the religions ability to part with rites or traditions to appease the state. If Congress outlawed all graphic depictions of death. Basically making displaying a crucifix illegal. Then Main stream Christianity would be the churches that give up the crucifix to comply with that. A new Christian cult would emerge that refused to part with the crucifix. Mainstream religion is not a product of any church. It's produced by government. Mainstream religion is their way of saying Government friendly church or government subordinate church. The Mormons are a perfect example of that. The mainstream mormon church has given up polygamy. Basically saying their prophets are wrong about that. That establishes them as false prophets. At least from a religious stand point. You cannot be wrong and still be a prophet. So they are basically a Mormon cult despite the "mainstream" label. The true church would lay with FLDS and other polygamist sects. Because they remain true to the rites, customs, and traditions established by the prophets.

[Wizard777]

121. Now that I think about it. I think he was actually Sikh.

Which is basically a monotheistic version of Jainism. The Doctors first name was Singh. Sikh's give their males the first or middle name of Singh. I think the not bathing to preserve the microbes comes from their Magi like devotion to truth and learning. That it is life and is worthy of respect. Sikh is one of the worlds newer religions. My take on it is that it's a subtle blend of Jainism with Zoroastrianism. As a Zoroastrian I find many Sikh beliefs to be familiar. But I get that with all monotheistic religions. The parts of Sikh I find to be foreign to my beliefs comes from Jainism.

[JerseygirlCT]

100. I would have guessed Jain, not necessarily Hindu. nt

[liberalpragmatist]

101. Yeah, but even the Jains I know all bathe

I wonder if this isn't even a religious thing but rather a personal thing.

[Wizard777]

114. Janism is Dharma based. So I tend to put it under the Hindu umbrella.

But I understand the differences as well as the simularities.

[JerseygirlCT]

117. From what I've read, it

predates Hinduism, doesn't it?

All very interesting to me at any rate!

[Wizard777]

120. No it doesn't Hinduism is about 5,500 BC. Jainism is about 600 BC.

Zoroastrianism is about 7,000 BC. Some authorities date Zoroastrianism at 700 BC. But they also place Zoroaster as contemporary to Cyrus the great. There are about 7 different people identified as Spitima Zarathrustra. The original was Contemporary to Kaye (king) Vishtasp. At the time of Cyrus the Great the Vishtasp Kingdom had occurred so long long ago it was considered to be a legendary kingdom. So Zoroastrianism is about 9,000 years old to date. Most of what is know about early Hinduism, and it's name, comes from Zoroastrian text. The west has a bad habit of trying to equate everything religious in the middle east to Christianity. It's far better and more accurate to compare it to Zoroastrianism.

[JerseygirlCT]

122. Not arguing about Zoroastrianism, particularly

vis a vis Christianity...

I was just doing a little reading on it last night, and the brief history I read said that Jainism had predated Hinduism, and had informed a fair amount of it.

Obviously, there's more reading to be done!

[Wizard777]

125. I'm just using it as a reference point. To go that far back in time.

You have to blow right past the Bible and even Torah to the Zend Avesta. Hinduism promotes that it is the worlds oldest religion. Personally I think Zoroastrianism is about 1,500 years older. It's always been my understanding that Jainism grew out of Hinduism. Not vice versa.

[JerseygirlCT]

126. You know, the more picking around I did about this

yesterday, the less clear it became! In some cases, Hinduism first, in others, Jainism. Both definitely have common roots, but I guess the trick is when those roots are identified as "Jainism".

In any case, yes, very ancient traditions.

[Doremus]

105. I'll never forget the guy we smelled in NYC.

Sitting on a park bench. He looked like he hadn't bathed in years.

He *did* stink.
AND he had lice.

I think that story about microbes et al is all wet and I can't imagine any hospital allowing it, imo. I would also wonder how long that particular religion has been in existence because knowledge of microbes is relatively recent.

[LeftishBrit]

62. Ah yes; it figures that the Daily Hate-Mail and Torygraph would distort such issues

[atreides1]

26. She's in Dallas Texas

Not the f***ing UK!

And it's a headscarf!!!

[tammywammy]

3. "IS SHE HERE ON H1B?" Why is that even relevant?

And I seriously doubt it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Makes the issue moot

[tammywammy]

8. Except there's no evidence of it in the first place

And I would seriously doubt it anyways.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Been to a grad school recently?

The percentage of foreign students would surprise you, most on educational visas

[tammywammy]

11. No, but my best friend went to medical school

in North Texas, and she had many many classmates that were also Middle Eastern/Indian (as they were my friends as well).

And educational visas is different than an H1-B.

[No Elephants]

86. Why?

[pampango]

40. Not relevant. The article doesn't even say whether she is an American citizen or not. We have

African-American Muslims around here who wear a full hijab. Just because this doctor wants to wear a head scarf and has a foreign sounding name doesn't mean we should leap to conclusions that would make a RW'er proud.

[xc8mip]

45. Agreed , labor law is above tribal affiliations , mustache not a skill

Tim Miller will have to recant

[tomm2thumbs]

14. is it the specific scarf they are against or would a doctor-styled cover work like scrubs color?

they said HER scarf - not any scarf?

does it also apply to certain make-up or body wraps? Hari Krishna and such?

Could a Wiccan wear a pentagram cloak (yes, absurd comparison) but my guess is that since their rule favors no religion, it would be allowed. What happens should she want to enter the military service? Would they allow her to define what uniform she chooses to wear as well? Where is the line drawn?

[tammywammy]

15. The article said no hats at all, including scarves. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

16. 12 juries will have 12 different verdicts - this will have to go higher I bet

I don't think they discriminated in hiring her - they hired her. Maybe that is their reason to say they aren't discriminating in their hiring practice. I'm sure they will find there are other exceptions made for other items of clothing and will have to accommodate as a result. If not, they might be safer in court.

[tammywammy]

17. I don't think they did hire her

She was just in for the interview, and during the interview she was told of the "no hats" policy. All the articles are just referring to it as "during the interview." There's no reference to her being hired by them.

[tomm2thumbs]

18. I see - it sounded like they had sans the scarf

From what I read, the law requires employers to make reasonable religious accommodations for employees. The Washington-based advocacy group explained to the company that like many Muslim women, Zaki covers her head as a sign of modesty and religious belief but I am not sure that they couldn't create a uniform-style version of something that would serve that purpose. Meeting halfway? I dunno.

A sign of modesty and religious belief could cover a lot of clothing items which can start to turn the word 'uniform' upside down.

[tammywammy]

20. Exactly

They're saying no scarf, period. Which would be discrimination (in my eye), wearing the scarf has no bearing on her ability to perform her job.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. could she wear a burka as well?

it technically has no bearing on her doing her job either - and actually could act as a germ-spread preventative so could be argued as beneficial to her role as doctor

[tammywammy]

22. I wouldn't have a problem with it. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

24. just curious how far that extends

This probably is ok then on some level to people who are used to being around it. I would find it difficult to deal with on many levels.

I guess everyone looks for a line to draw so that everyone is clear on what is in or out as far as uniforms/rules/laws go. I could see how at some point the Supreme Court has to draw a line so everyone gets an idea of it without everyone jumping into a courtroom all the time. I read that the Qur'an does not require a hijab which surprised me.

[tammywammy]

25. Yes, I think there needs to be some clarification on the rules

Honestly, I don't care what my doctor wears as long as their competent.

[tomm2thumbs]

27. enjoyed your thoughts - thanks /nt

[tammywammy]

28. Same here. :) n/t

[AspenRose]

129. +1

My children's pedi is Muslim. This whole thing is absurd.

[Wizard777]

34. Women that wear Burka's are only allowed to be barefoot and pregnant. Not doctors.

[LeftishBrit]

60. A burka, however, could impair the woman's field of vision

And also would affect communication with those who depend on lipreading or facial communication: e.g. deaf or language-impaired people, those who speak another language, or young children.

All of which would be problematic for a doctor, in a way that a head covering would not.

I can see that there could be hygiene-related problems over a headscarf being brought in from outside - but why not make some sort of cap available for use just in the hospital (as I understand it, the rule is simply that Muslim women need to cover their hair, not that they need to use the conventional headscarf for the purpose)? Actually that might also be useful for long-haired non-Muslim doctors, whose hair might itself carry germs from the outside.

[Quantess]

102. I highly doubt it would prevent the spread of germs.

If anything, it would encourage the spread of germs. Think of this burka fabric coming in contact with dozens of patients as she makes the rounds. At least, hands can be washed between patients.

[WriteDown]

47. What does wearing a hat affect?

Let everyone wear hats.

[tammywammy]

48. Nothing

The could say hats for all, but at the same time a company has the right to implements a dress code. When it's a head covering worn for religious reasons, then a company has to make reasonable accommodations.

[WriteDown]

49. Can't anything be claimed as a religion though?

I'm half "mohawk." I've often thought about cutting my hair into an actual mohawk (although that's bit of a misnomer) and messing with HR at the various companies that I have worked for. I do not believe that they could actually discipline me.

[tammywammy]

50. Sure people could claim anything as religious

But when it came down to a court, I think tammywammy's Church of the Monkey would be dissected and found to be phony.

And I slightly break the dress code every day at work, I wear my flip flops in my office, but put on the pumps when I'm meeting with someone or walking around.

[WriteDown]

51. It would be tough to hide the mohawk...

Personally, I think we should take our cues from France on these type of things.

[No Elephants]

54. IMO, an American court would stand on its head to avoid declaring what is

a phony religion and what is a true religion. They do it when the IRS forces an issue about tax exemption, but it is really shaky Constitutional ground they're treading when they pick and choose.

[Quantess]

19. Maybe headscarves carry germs.

It's possible. I saw on the news that doctors' ties are germ carriers, and that doctors are being encouraged to lose their ties.

[emilyg]

23. Good point. White coats are

germ carriers, too.

[kestrel91316]

68. Headscarves don't carry any more germs than the hair on someone's head does.

[Quantess]

107. And you know this, how?

[kestrel91316]

123. Well, my degrees in microbiology and veterinary medicine taught me

a thing or two about germs and where they hang out and good hygiene in general, lol.

And where did YOU study microbiology and medicine?

[kestrel91316]

124. Well, my degrees in microbiology and veterinary medicine taught me

a thing or two about germs and where they hang out and good hygiene in general, lol.

And where did YOU study microbiology and medicine?

[harry_pothead]

29. If you want to live in a country that accomodates every piece of Muslim culture,

then go live in Saudi Arabia.

But if you decide to live in the West, understand that your religion's mores may be suspended to meet other concerns. If you don't like it, don't live here.

[Wizard777]

33. Actually the first amendment suspends Law and the regligious mores prevail.

As you say, "If you don't like it, don't live here."

[No Elephants]

38. Not really. In the very first "free exercise" case the SCOTUS decided, it held

that the freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to practice your religion is not absolute. (Therefore, Mormons could be jailed for bigamy.) That holding has never been overruled.

How today's overwhelmingly Catholic AND overwhelmingly pro-government SCOTUS would rule on a hijab in a medical environment is anyone's guess.

We do have a statute that govern exercise of religion in the workplace, though, and that statute requires an employer to make REASONABLE accomodation of an employees religous practices.

What this SCOTUS would consider reasonable in this particular case is also anyone's guess.

[Wizard777]

41. It's a fundamental right. So SCOTUS is going to apply strict scrutiny.

What is the compelling interest in banning the Hijab?

SCOTUS more typically rules in favor of religious freedoms. I think the Courts Christian make up goes against abstract forms of Christianity like Mormonism. If they would have represented themselves to the court as something other than Christians. I absolutely believe that case would have had a totally different outcome. The flow of "Mainstream Christianity" is driven by what is and is not Christianity. They just love to attack their own on that.

[No Elephants]

43. The SCOTUS applies strict scrutiny when a Constitutional right is involved.

(or, in discrimination cases, a protected class). Maybe you see "fundamental" as interchangeable with "Constitutional," but I don't.

Employees don't have constitutional rights against private employers, though, only against government.

So, perhaps you should stick to the "reasonable accommodation" standard of the statute, which does apply to most private employers.

[Wizard777]

75. But this is a discrimination suite by a member of a protected class (Religion.)

Actually a Fundamental right is closer to being a human right than a Constitutional right. The US Constitution does provide for some Human Rights. So when some one says, "fundamental right" they are referring to those human rights expressed in the Constitution. When ever there is a denial based on race or religion. Strict scrutiny is applied.

[No Elephants]

80. Again, the Equal Protection Clause protects us from government action, not

from the action of a private employer. And religion is not the kind of protected class under the Equal Protection Clause to which my post referred. Those would be more along the lines of racial and ethnic minorities.

So, "reasonable accommodation," the statutory standard, is the only standard that applies.


As far as fundamental righs vs. Constitutional rights, our laws are the Constitution, statutes, and common law, none of which agree with you on that subject.

In Roe v. Wade, fundamental rights were one, and only one, part of the reason the SCOTUS found that abortion was a Constitutional right, though not mentioned specifically in the Constitution. And it MAY have done that in the right to privacy and association cases, though I cannot recall one way or the other. I am only guessing because they are not rights expressly mentioned in the Constitution. However, those situations are the exception, not the rule. And, when dealing with a right that IS expressly mentioned in the Constitution, like free exercise of religion, the fundamental rights analysis is unnecessary and therefore not part of the SCOTUS case.]

However, again, the Constitution does not apply to this clinic; only the statute does.

Whatever opinions you have about rights, you are certainly entitled to them. But that is not how our law happens to work.

[Wizard777]

113. The word your looking for to save you a paragraph is Constructionism.

That's how we get rights not specifically mentioned. But most if not all of these rights are conveyed upon employers by Statute. I do agree with you on that. Statutory protections of religion have greatly increased. It's a violation of federal law to interfere with the free exercise of religion. I live in Maryland where that is also a violation of state law. Our legislature recently passed laws concerning first amendment rights in covert investigations. So any Maryland police officers trying to arrest us for our possession or uses of the Green Hom (Marijuana) or White Hom (Ephedra or Cocaine depending upon the sect)they will be the only ones going to jail. The possession cases against us will be overturned under the first amendment. The charges we would file against the officers for interfering with the free exercise of religion would stick all the way to SCOTUS.

[Chulanowa]

35. The funny thing is...

"The West" is allowing Christian pharmacists to deny and even destroy prescriptions for medicines they deem immoral.

And here you are, shoving your pointy little head up your own ass about this woman wishing to wear a goddamned form of hair binding in a medical environment.

'Cause when I see a doctor, I know goddamned well I want to see a mountainous heap of bleached, dead, hairsprayed cobwebbing growing out of that scalp, makes me feel real fucking sanitary.

[MetaTrope]

31. Nice to see how bleeding-heart neocons are ready to fight to the death (of troops) for the rights of

brown foreign Muslim women in Afghanistan...but in America, it's kick them to the curb.

[No Elephants]

39. I don't see neocons as fighting for the rights of Muslim women anywhere.

In Iraq, we allowed sharia law to be enshrined in the Constitution when we had total control of that country and that process, and the neocons angrily justified it. In Afghanistan, they fight the Islamic extremists (unless, of course, they can convert them). If that happens to help the women, oh well. If it doesn't, oh well.

Besides, there's no inconsistency. We want to bring democracy (and, ideally, Christianity) to the Middle East. We don't want the Middle Easterns imposing their filthy Eastern ways upon us, though, especially on our own damned turf, ffs.



"Ringo: The fire brigade once got my head out of some railings.
John: Did you want them to?
Ringo: No. I used to leave it there when I wasn't using it for school. You can see a lot of the world from railings.


John: Now see what you've done with your filthy Eastern ways!
Ahme: No! It is Klang, the high priest, who is filthy in his filthty Eastern ways!
John: How do we know you're not just as filthy, and sent by him to nick the ring by being filthy, and you've lulled us with your filthy Eastern ways?
Paul: What filthy ways are these?"

HELP!

[Flaneur]

69. Nice. Didn't realize we had so many of them on this board.

[No Elephants]

91. IMO, we have quite a few.

Apparently, if you use spell check and don't post too rabidly, you can post all the RW stuff you want.

Unfortunate and distasteful, IMO.

[Wizard777]

32. I agree that the policy applied in this way forms religious discrimination.

[No Elephants]

37. How about fresh surgical caps? If none are large enough to cover all the hair (if that is her

tradition), maybe she and/or they can have some larger ones specially made.

Surely, a clean surgical cap is more sanitary than a mess of hair which can shed.

Surely, a medical facility cannot object to a clean surgical cap?


I'd be interested to know when they made this non-discriminatory no head covering rule.


I happened to be in Texas following 911, the date on which I was supposed to leave, but, funny thing, I couldn't get a flight bc my surname was not Bin Laden. Anyhoo, don't ask what was on local TV and talk radio. Just don't ask. I shudder whenever I think about it.

[izquierdista]

44. More on hat bullshit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FKOVFyd3nc

[No Elephants]

64. I can accept certain kinds of hat bullshit.

[JonQ]

58. You mean the rules are applied equally to everyone regardless of religious belief?

This is an outrage!

What next, not hiring amish IT guys because they "don't believe in computers"?

[No Elephants]

63. a rule against hats in the workplace has nothing to do witth religous belief? Maybe.

But the law does not require equal application. It requires "reasonable accommodation."

[JonQ]

66. And overturning a rule not based on religion

that is in place for sanitary reasons just because someone doesn't feel it applies to them is not "reasonable accommodation".moe

If someones religion prohibits washing their hands I wouldn't consider it unfair to not hire them as a surgeon, or in the food service industry.

[No Elephants]

78. How do you know what the rule is based on?

Besides, I suggested a reasonable alternative: surgical caps.

Allowing someone to handle food without handwashing is not a "reasonable accomodation," anymore than your Amish computer example.

Silly straw men.

[kestrel91316]

65. As someone in a medical profession I see no rationale for prohibiting

a religiously mandated headscarf while in the office. If she needs to perform a medical procedure of some sort, then her attire should be the same as others: cap and mask, or whatever. But in a situation where other women doctors would have nothing on their heads, like during a routine exam, if anything the doctor with the headscarf would be a little more sanitary, with hairs not randomly dropping off or flying around.

[Lance_Boyle]

127. The someones in the medical profession who made the rule disagree.

Difference is that their opinions count in this case.

[Flaneur]

71. Wow, a lot of religoius bigotry on this thread.

Disguised as faux concern about health.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

84. yup

[harun]

115. Sure is, a few showing fair discussion of the issue though.

It is nice to see we still have some of those people on DU.

[AspenRose]

130. *nodding*

[Pavulon]

74. Voodoo of any flavor has no place at work..

big ass crosses, head scarves, or head covers. Nada. What imaginary being people pray to has zero place on the job. We do not live in Saudi, this is not the Vatican either.

[No Elephants]

88. Sorry. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and regulations promulgated pursuant to that law say.

otherwise. They apply to most employers and require reasonable accommodation. That does not mean that you can inflict your religion upon your co-workers. It may mean that you can cover your hair.

[Pavulon]

94. Yep, I would expect that to be handled in court. In the mean time

she can follow the rules or find another job. I would argue hardship for the employer.

[Quantess]

106. Agreed. Especially not Medical Doctors.

Give me an atheist MD any day, instead of a fundie MD!

Patients still do have the right to change doctors, do they not?

[Pavulon]

109. I agree, but am not condescending to all religious folks

just saying that work is not the place for it. If a muslim nation like turkey is OK with women not wearing scarves, a doctors office in texas should be a no brainer.

I would say the exact same thing for a person wearing a prominent religious item from any faith. Places like courts, state offices, and medical providers should be secular to maintain a fair system for everyone.

[Quantess]

110. All I see is whether it is of clinical value to the patient.

Doctors shouldn't be so self-centered and so religion-centered, to say that it's all about their own religious vanity.

[Mosby]

77. Does this policy include the wearing of kippot?

it is a headcovering albeit a small one.

If there is anything that hospital admins should consider banning it's neckties.

---------------

Doctors may be harbouring disease-causing bugs in their ties that could potentially be transmitted to patients, a new study has found.

Nearly half the neckties worn by 42 doctors at the New York Hospital Medical Center of Queen's (NYHMCQ) contained bacteria which can cause dangerous conditions like pneumonia and blood infections, the researchers found.

"This study brings into question whether wearing a necktie is in the best interest of our patients," says NYHMCQ's Steven Nurkin, who led the team.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn5029-doctors-ties-harbour-diseasecausing-germs.html

[No Elephants]

92. The clinic's rule? Why wouldn't it? I can't believe anyone would be so dumb

as to tell a Muslim woman that her religious belief does not excuse her from the no hat rule, then excuse Jewish men from the no hat rule because of their religious belief. That's just begging for lawsuits.

Then again, you never know how dumb people can be.

Ties? Yuck. What about suits? Same issues, no?

Make em ALL wear scrubs, rubber clogs and skull caps-and make them change their clothes and wash their shoes often, sez I.

If it's good enough for Grey's Anatomy, it's good enough for all medical care providers.

[laughingliberal]

104. Neckties may be next. I'm not sure why the hospital bans the scarves but most of them banned

nurse's caps some years back based on the fact that they became little micro labs going from one patient to the other and right in their faces when we bent over to listen to their chests.

[totodeinhere]

99. Remember that headscarfs are foreign to and misunderstood by many Americans.

Maybe if she wears a headscarf she would end up intimidating some of her patients.

[Flaneur]

128. THE CLINIC HAS TOTALLY BACKED DOWN!

I wonder if the DU bigots will, too.

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26121&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

Texas Medical Group Apologizes for Hijab Flap, Clarifies Policy on Religious Accommodation
Posted 11/2/2009 1:34:00 PM

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/2/09) - A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization announced today that a major medical group in Texas has apologized to a Muslim job applicant and has agreed to “clarify” its policy on religious accommodation for employees who wear religious attire such as Islamic head scarves (hijab) or beards.

SEE: Clinic Apologizes for Telling Muslim Doctor She Can't Wear Headscarf


Last week, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported that a Muslim doctor being interviewed for a position with CareNow, a medical group with 22 facilities in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, was told that a “no hat” policy would prohibit her from wearing hijab. She was also reportedly informed that CareNow prohibits employees from wearing beards. (Many Muslim men view wearing a beard as a religious requirement.)

A CAIR letter to CareNow noted that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee, unless to do so would create an “undue hardship” on the employer.

SEE: Texas Medical Group Denies Muslim Doctor Right to Hijab

In an October 31 e-mail, CareNow President Tim Miller wrote:

“We regret the misunderstanding with Dr. Zaki. We will clarify our policy and continue to provide training to our current employees to try to prevent future misunderstandings. We look forward to sitting down with Dr. Zaki and discussing potential job opportunities. Bright, young doctors like her are just what we're looking for.”

“We are pleased that all current and future CareNow employees will have their legal right to religious accommodation acknowledged and respected,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper.

He said CAIR’s South Carolina chapter recently assisted a Muslim worker who alleges that he suffered religious discrimination at the hands of co-workers after he requested a private place at work to perform his prayers.

SEE: Ex-SRS Worker Sues for Discrimination


Hooper added that CAIR offers a booklet, “An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices,” designed to help prevent such incidents from occurring.

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

- END -