Quote :

"Man sues Durham-based convenience stores over turban and beard DURHAM, N.C. — A member of the Sikh (SEEK) religious faith says a Durham-based chain of convenience stores crossed a line by telling him to get a shave and a haircut. Surjit Singh Saund sued M.M. Fowler Inc., which owns the Family Fare chain of stores, on Tuesday in federal court. Saund’s lawsuit says an M.M. Fowler hiring manager told him that he couldn’t wear a turban, have long hair or a beard. Sikh men refrain from cutting their hair or shaving. They also wear turbans as part of their religious practice. Saund’s lawsuit seeks lost wages and benefits and other unspecified damages. Documents say he worked in other convenience stores since 2002. A call to M.M. Fowler was not immediately returned Tuesday."

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/8326810/

Brilliant GOLO comments follow.

9/21/2010 9:52:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BF30vH_Ebs

9/21/2010 9:54:03 PM

It's a shame that it comes down to a lawsuit

But I hope he wins

9/21/2010 10:00:45 PM

(SEEK)

9/21/2010 10:02:49 PM

meh I dont care.

I hope he loses in court. I am pretty sure in his home country its conform or GTFO so I dont feel bad or him.

9/21/2010 10:04:49 PM

Fuck that. As long as he is a citizen he is allowed the American dream. Intolerance is unacceptable.

9/21/2010 10:06:41 PM

Quote :

"Surjit (SURJEET) Singh (SING) Saund (uh, SAUND?)"

9/21/2010 10:09:39 PM

Quote :

"take his turban, religion and beard and go back to his country. he is blessed to live in America..living in Rome you do as the Romans do. UNCfuturealumi September 21, 2010 7:43 p.m."

9/21/2010 10:09:48 PM

Quote :

"alumi"

9/21/2010 10:10:39 PM

I feel like this case is baseless without proof of biased treatment based on his religion. Its a private business, as long as they are applying the policy across the board then this guy doesn't really have room to complain. If he wants to continue his practices then he'll have to find another job.

9/21/2010 10:12:06 PM

Quote :

"Fuck that. As long as he is a citizen he is allowed the American dream. Intolerance is unacceptable."

He can do whatever he wants except work somewhere that does not allow head gear and facial hair.

What about the guys rights who owns the company and wants clean cut employees? If he was being singled out for something he could not help (like ethnicity) it would be a different story but in this case it looks like he just does not qualify to work there.

9/21/2010 10:13:25 PM

how much has he really "lost"? go find another job, hippie

9/21/2010 10:14:41 PM

So they want cashiers with a clean shaven face and no hats inside. What's the big deal?

Oh, right. He has the right to be offended.

9/21/2010 10:14:50 PM

Quote :

"UNC future alumi"

9/21/2010 10:15:44 PM

so he's suing a place he never worked at, because in the job interview the manager explained the companies dress code. good luck with that

9/21/2010 10:20:59 PM

It's the same reason that Sikhs generally aren't allowed to serve in the military.

9/21/2010 10:24:44 PM

doesn't look like facial hair is against company policy to me

9/21/2010 10:25:04 PM

i don't think sikhs trim their facial hair, which was prolly the point of contention

9/21/2010 10:47:20 PM

9/21/2010 10:50:19 PM

My religion requires me to constantly hang my naked ball sack out of my zipper. Maybe I should sue.

9/21/2010 10:52:55 PM

Quote :

"I feel like this case is baseless without proof of biased treatment based on his religion. Its a private business, as long as they are applying the policy across the board then this guy doesn't really have room to complain. If he wants to continue his practices then he'll have to find another job."

9/21/2010 11:39:57 PM

whatevs. not into it.

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 11:45:20 PM

^^
Yeah, the basis for discrimination is not religion.

He couldn't be hired at my job based on the facial hair alone - however that's for semi-legitimate safety concerns.

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 11:49 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 11:48:04 PM

If this store sells those shitty hotdogs, then this shit will get thrown right out for food safety reasons.

9/21/2010 11:50:48 PM

Covering up tattoos, taking out piercings, getting haircuts and keeping facial hair neat is the norm for jobs where you have to interface with the public. People in America make the choice to conform or find other avenues to earn a living every day. I'd understand his disappointment, but the lawsuit just proves he's already buying into American greed.

9/22/2010 12:10:08 AM

I am a Sikh, so obviously I have bias here, but the issue is denying the job based on religion. His religious practices do not interfere with the job at hand. He was offered the job on the grounds that he stop practicing his faith, which is the argument at hand.

9/22/2010 12:10:52 AM

^, please see ^^^^^^^

9/22/2010 12:17:07 AM

Quote :

"He was offered the job on the grounds that he stop practicing his faith"

Christians would be boycotting this place if this happened to one of them

what I'm trying to say is FUCK CHRISTIANS, GOD IS DEAD

9/22/2010 12:18:46 AM

^^^

Not really.

This is sort of slippery slope. Obviously his appearance, due to his religion, would not hinder his job performance. Arguments could be made about safety. My question is where do you draw the line?

There's always this argument:

Quote :

"My religion requires me to constantly hang my naked ball sack out of my zipper. Maybe I should sue."

albeit it's not flawless.

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 12:20 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2010 12:19:10 AM

that's pretty weak

it would be pretty easy to establish guidelines for what constitutes a sincere religious belief and what constitutes some stupid shit made up for the sake of argument

9/22/2010 12:20:51 AM

Obviously the example is facetious. The principle, not so much.

9/22/2010 12:21:59 AM

the principle is also fatally flawed

i don't think anyone is prepared to recognize something only one person on earth believes as a sincere religion

9/22/2010 12:23:58 AM

Quote :

"do as the Romans do"

go on.........

9/22/2010 12:25:08 AM

Quote :

"He was offered the job on the grounds that he stop practicing his faith, which is the argument at hand."

incorrect. He was told that he would have to shave and couldn't wear the turban. Those just happen to be aspects of his religion. The ballsack argument, while crass, is a fair comparison. They don't give a shit about his religion as far as we know. They just don't want their employees to wear head gear or have unkempt facial hair.

Almost every place I've worked has had restrictions regarding appearance. Whether it be covering up tattoos, not wearing any type of hat, facial hair having to be kept neat and trimmed, etc. It's not about why he has a beard and wears a turban (which would be discrimination based on faith), but simply that he has a beard and wears a turban.

The company has a right to have a dress code and to include facial hair in that code.

Quote :

"i don't think anyone is prepared to recognize something only one person on earth believes as a sincere religion"

I see what you're saying. But at the same time, what if 100 people felt that way? how many people have to sincerely believe it before it's a religious practice? and who are you to decide that? Let's make it not so obscene. Instead of having a sack hanging out, what if it's a tattoo (a geometric pattern) on the face or hands? If the employer doesn't want their employees to have visible tattoos, that's their choice. Simply because you did it because of religious beliefs doesn't give you a pass on not meeting the guidelines.

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2010 12:29:13 AM

Quote :

"the principle is also fatally flawed i don't think anyone is prepared to recognize something only one person on earth believes as a sincere religion "

Where's the line then? 10 people? 100 people? 1000 people?

That's the whole crux of the issue, anyway. What people find socially acceptable. It's not a religious thing. They don't care if his long beard is because of his religion or the fact that he's in a biker gang.

CHIT CHAT IS GETTIN' PHILOSOPHICAL.

9/22/2010 12:36:38 AM

there is legal precedent for what constitutes a sincerely held religious belief

i don't care enough to pull the cases

i assure you the nutsack thing doesn't make the cut but Sikhism (26 million followers worldwide) does

9/22/2010 12:37:14 AM

again, the issue isn't with his religion. it's with his beard and head gear. doesn't matter why he had the beard or hat. -- unless he has reason (and evidence) to suggest the real issue is religion.

9/22/2010 12:40:50 AM

he will easily prove that the company does not enforce its facial hair policy

his turban is not a baseball cap

it is a fundamental part of practicing his religion and it cannot be removed

when this is over Mr. Saund will have a few extra dollars in his pocket and M.M. Fowler Inc. will have religious exceptions in its employee appearance policy

and the idiot that told him to cut his hair should be murdered for being too dumb to just shut up about it and hire another candidate instead of handing him the ammo for the lawsuit

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 12:47 AM. Reason : s]

9/22/2010 12:45:58 AM

We, too, are here for the job.

Quote :

"and the idiot that told him to cut his hair should be murdered for being too dumb to just shut up about it and hire another candidate instead of handing him the ammo for the lawsuit"

I agree.

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 12:51 AM. Reason : l]

9/22/2010 12:51:38 AM

^^ agree with BT

9/22/2010 12:52:36 AM

you can have a clean shaven beard. I am sure they would be fine with it if he trimmed it.

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ']

9/22/2010 12:53:06 AM

I don't know their official policies. but there's a difference between "no facial hair" and "facial hair must be kept neat and trimmed." I also have no idea what his facial hair looks like. Do you?

I have no idea if they enforce their policy or not since I do not know the official policy. Do you know the official policy?

And while a turban is surely not a baseball cap, it is part of their dress attire. Are you suggesting otherwise?


I see nothing wrong with this guideline/practice as long as the store would say the same exact thing to these people:

9/22/2010 12:55:23 AM

those people can take off their hats and cut their beards as a matter of choice

Mr. Saund cannot

i'm bored by your stupidity

9/22/2010 12:58:10 AM

really? he can't cut his beard, hair, or take off his hat? cannot, or won't?

It's their company. If they want their employees to meet a certain criteria appearance-wise, I'll support that all day.

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2010 12:59:56 AM

people who do not understand the law ITT

keep up the good fight billytalent

i have a low tolerance for ratards that can't grasp simple concepts.

9/22/2010 1:00:27 AM

^^ he cannot

i can tell you aren't spiritual or smart

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 1:01 AM. Reason : a]

9/22/2010 1:00:39 AM

differences between religious turbans and baseball caps go unnoticed ITT

9/22/2010 1:01:43 AM

billytalent running shop in this thread

9/22/2010 1:01:59 AM

Quote :

"people who do not understand the law ITT "

9/22/2010 1:03:02 AM

i'm glad to see that duro982 stays out of the soap box

if he gets run this hard in chit chat i'd hate to see what those guys do to him

9/22/2010 1:04:39 AM