• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Cabada Hameed LLP

Employment and Business Litigation Lawyers based in Southern California

  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search
Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Abercrombie’s Religious Discrimination Case

July 20, 2015 //  by Sayema Hameed//  Leave a Comment

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled 8-1 in a recent decision against popular retailer Abercrombie & Fitch (Abercrombie) in a discrimination case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a Muslim teenager. The case stemmed from the company rejecting 17-year-old Samantha Elauf’s job application after she wore a headscarf to her interview.

Religious Discrimination Case Background

Elauf applied to work in an Abercrombie store back in 2008. She wore a headscarf to her interview and was later informed that the company would not hire due to their “Look Policy” employee dress code. Abercrombie claimed that it did not discriminate against her because (1) she did not make a specific request for her headscarf to be accommodated by the company during her interview and (2) they did not know the headscarf had any religious value. According to sources at Abercrombie, the manager who interviewed Elauf was instructed by her superior to lower Elauf’s interview score because of her hijab. This ultimately led to Elauf being disqualified for the position.

The case was taken to district court and Elauf was awarded $20,000. The EEOC, which represented Elauf, argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Elauf from being disqualified as a job applicant with Abercrombie due to her wearing hijab. Title VII mandates that employers are to offer accommodations to their dress code when religion is concerned.

The district court’s decision was overturned by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which ruled for Abercrombie. Abercrombie argued that it had no way of knowing Elauf was seeking a religious accommodation since she did not explicitly request one during the interview.

The U.S. Solicitor General asked SCOTUS to hear the case. SCOTUS held that Abercrombie violated federal employment law by making a hiring decision that was motivated by the desire to avoid accommodating a religious practice, regardless whether the prospective applicant requested accommodation or whether the employer knew for certain if religious accommodation was needed. According to the Supreme Court,

“An employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.”

The Court went on to state:

“…[T]o accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

Elauf’s case was supported by a broad coalition of supporters of varying religious backgrounds. Elauf was extremely satisfied with the SCOTUS ruling, saying:

“I was a teenager who loved fashion and was eager to work for Abercrombie & Fitch. Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights, and happy that the EEOC was there for me and took my complaint to the courts. I am grateful to the Supreme Court for today’s decision and hope that other people realize that this type of discrimination is wrong and the EEOC is there to help.”

The New Holding’s Applicability to Company Policy

Since the SCOTUS holding, Abercrombie now allows employees to wear headscarves during work hours. Employers should review the EEOC fact sheet on Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace to ensure they are properly abiding by federal laws regarding rights and accommodations for religious observances. California law, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, enacted in 2013, already required employers to accommodate religious dress and grooming practices.

Sources

Supreme Court to Weigh Employer’s Responsibility in Avoiding Discrimination

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of EEOC in Abercrombie Religious Discrimination Case

 

Category: NewsTag: Abercrombie, hijab, religious discrimination

Previous Post: « Sayema Hameed Is Named A 2015 Southern California Rising Star
Next Post: California Employees receive sick leave under new California law.»

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • News
  • Press
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • May 2022
  • February 2021
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • March 2019
  • December 2018
  • December 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • October 2016
  • July 2016
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • February 2014
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • September 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2009
  • May 2008

Connect

           

Tags

#MeToo Abercrombie anti-discrimination arbitration arbitration agreement baby bonding California california employment law CFRA coronavirus COVID-19 credit report DFEH disability discrimination DLSE EDD EEOC employee employer employment contract employment discrimination employment law entertainment family medical leave FEHA FMLA gender expression gender identity harassment healthcare hijab independent contractor meal break NLRB paid family leave pandemic pregnancy disability leave religion religious discrimination sex discrimination sexual harassment Sick Leave Law small business social media wrongful termination

Copyright © 2023 Cabada Hameed LLP· · Sitemap · <a href"/disclaimer/" Disclaimer Log in