Muslim is asked to get out of bank line
 

link


A Muslim woman was asked to leave her place in line at a credit union in Southern Maryland and be served in a back room because the head scarf she wore for religious reasons violated the institution's "no hats, hoods or sunglasses" policy, the woman said yesterday.

The incident at the Navy Federal Credit Union on Saturday was the second in a month for Kenza Shelley, and Muslim advocates fear it could become a problem nationwide as many financial institutions, intent on curbing robberies and identity theft, ban hats and similar items without appropriate accommodations for religious attire.

"This may be the tip of the iceberg," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. "There's got to be a way to work it out so that this security concern does not lead to violations of constitutional rights."

Shelley, 54, who runs a day care out of her home in Lexington Park, said she has used the credit union in the St. Mary's County community of California for more than 10 years. Until February, no employees had complained about her head scarf, which covers her hair but not her face. But a few weeks ago, she said, she was standing in line to deposit a check when an employee asked her to come to the back room, referring to a new policy that prohibited hats, hoods and sunglasses. She complied but asked whether she would have to go through the same process each time she made a transaction.

On Saturday, Shelley said, employees again asked her to come to the back room if she would not remove her head scarf. "No," she recalled telling them, "I want to be served like everybody else."

She left the credit union and called the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which lobbies and advocates for the Muslim community. "There was so many people there, and I was embarrassed," she said.

Hmmm...this is a toughie. I know in banks, motorcyclists have to remove their helmets when they walk into the bank for the reason that the camera can get a clear shot of their head and face, unobstructed. The veil would obstruct the top of the head but (depending on how it was worn) not the face. A tough one to be sure.

Yeah this is definitely a tough subject. Since it wasn't covering her face, I don't see the problem. This reminds me of a case in Florida where the woman had the full head wrap (I can't remember what they're called... hijab?) that only exposed her eyes and she refused to remove it for her license picture.

I know that America is a melting pot of different cultures. My heritage has its' own culture and tradition. The thing is, in those countries you must cover your hair even if you are not Muslim, to respect their culture. The US has laws and unfortunately federal institutions are now having to implement regulations that may offend someone. Where do you draw the line between respect and protecting our safety?

And before I get jumped on, I am not saying that a Muslim woman wearing a head wrap will rob a bank... but how easy would it be for a woman (or man I guess) to rob a bank with the full head wrap (eyes only exposed), putting people in danger, and never be found because you can't exactly identify a suspect by looking only at their eyes?

o.k. I know I'm going to get chewed out here, but if she wants to be served just like everyone else then she needs to follow the rules just like everyone else.

I've heard this before, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Whenever a U.S. citizen visits a predominantly Muslim country, isn't it true that we have to respect the rules over there, even if we don't practice them in our culture over here?

I read this story earlier. If going inside of the bank is going to cause a situation like this, she can use the drive thru.

I'm all for respecting cultures, but if an action causes a safety concern, find another way to do it.

How is that relevant to the topic at hand? She is not in another country. She is an American who is a Muslim and what other country does is none of our concern when discussing this case.

I personally believe that if they were scared of robbery, why didn't security stop her when she first come into the door? Why wait for her to wait in line, go all the way into the front of the line, then reject her in front of everybody. I'm sure that if she was handled differently, this would be no problem. A little common sense people.

Very good points !!

Religious beliefs < public safety.

The problem is the isn't a "rule" about head coverings in the US. It is the individual bank's policy. The rule in the US isn't you can't have a head covering. While we're on the topic, respecting the culture isn't the same as following the rule. Not all Islamic countries require women to be covered, and if they do they are open about it and inform visitors. But, as it was pointed out, she was not a visitor to the US. She lives in the US and is following her religion.

Headscarves are far more fitting than hoods. It serves to cover the hair and depending on the style, the neck and forehead. No head covering would prevent a proper picture on security camera. I'm willing to be any Muslim woman who is living in the US who wears a full burka and feet covered is not going to be a woman who is banking.

was the head scarf covering her face or was it just covering her head?

I know, but I was asking because this country was founded on Christian principles. The Muslim religion was brought here by other cultures. It doesn't matter because I read PM Mama's post after I posted. She already answered my question.

but many americans DON'T follow other country's rules.

This is misleading at best. The nation was founded on Christian principles but not Christian rules - as such, the fact that Islam came comparatively later to the party is wholly irrelevant (and again, misleading). You're knocking down a straw man.

All that matters here is whether her right to freely exercise her religious beliefs was violated. It does not appear that was the case, but I would still encourage the woman to find another bank.

o.k. good point. I didn't see it like that.

I agree, if she can't follow the rules just like everyone else, then she should find another bank. Why should she be an exception?

I wonder if an orthodox jew would be allowed to wear his hat? Actually, upon reflection, the bank would end up not chosing to serve a fair number of religious and ethnic groups with this policy.

Pretty much what I was thinking. I could see if she was asked to leave the line simply because she was Muslim and some nut didn't want to serve her. But since it's for safety/security reasons, I'm ok with it.

Just this morning I was reading about how bank robberies have been on the rise (most citing the tough economic times) so I can understand how the bank may deen hard covering, hats, etc. as an element of surprise.

Exactly. You don't wait until a security concern walks through the door, goes through the line, and then make an issue. She should have been stopped at the door and informed of the policy the first time it happened.

That reminds me, speaking of tough times, an article I ran across last week that I forgot to post:


Former executive arrested for bank robberies in VA

Kind of makes you wonder...

Looks like she was aware of the policy before it became an issue.

And now that I think about it...heh!

The Mand T Bank around the corner from my job has 2 women tellers there that are Muslim with headscarves on, so it makes me wonder, if a policy like this starts to catch on, will there be any actions taken against EMPLOYEES who do the same.

I agree with both of you.

The employees would have a bond through the bank; they'd probably be excepted.

I think that the Canadian response to this would be that we accomodate people to the point where it becomes an "undue hardship" (nods to HR Professor). Is the head scarf undue hardship? Hard to say.....

I agree. I have seen security guards stand at the door and request that guys remove their ball caps, motorcycle helmets, etc.

If this goes to court (and it probably will), if her face was unobstructed, I would say that she will 'win' the case. If her face was partially obstructed (and therefore, the bank branch cameras could not get a clear shot of her face), then I would say that the bank will win.

That's basically where these "rules" are stemming from.

Yeah, what about old school nuns in habits?

Oooh....that's true. And even some Greek Orthodox women? You don't see them around a lot but some of them do cover the hair, depending on the circumstance.

So what about people who have to wear helmets. What about women with bad hair days. You know policies have to cover all contingencies. They have rights, too.

What about bald cancer patients with wigs?

LOL sometimes when I have a bad hair day I wish I could walk around with a paper bag on my head - hats don't cover the crazy that my hair can get on a humid day!

I agree.

Hats don't obstruct the face (usually?!) either, so it's sort of the same thing.

This isn't a just one bank that has this policy. I know at least 2 different bank groups where I live that have the you must remove you hat, etc policy posted in clear view before you get in line. At the drive thru of my local bank the no hat policy sign is posted there too. I can't remember how long these policies have been in place. Hmm.

I hate retards in general. They all come in all shapes and religious believe and even people posting in this particular topic.

Except for Eastern Orthodox nuns who are covered at all times, the only time a woman's hair is covered is during services.

Wow?

As a private institution they are allowed to make whatever rules they want. If they are willing to lose a customer over this rule (which clearly they are) then it must be very important to them. While she has a right to exercise her religion, she does NOT have a right to break the bank's rules while doing so. If she tries to sue I promise that the supreme court will agree with me.

No, they are not. Otherwise, they'd be free to make a rule that they only serve whites or males.

This presents a case of balancing the bank's legitimate need for security with her civil right to practice her religion. I wouldn't be so sure how the courts will view it, especially with just a news story (rather than a developed court record) to go on.

I'm a private entity - I now make a rule that I can murder people. Life is awesome.

Many of our prominent founders actually considered themselves deists. Kind of like agnostic, I guess. Not as strictly religious as people assume the signers of the constitution would be. Totally off topic. The end.