Term: 2014
Docket: 14-86
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
- Pro
14-86 E.E.O.C. V. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. DECISION BELOW: 731 F.3d 1106 CERT. GRANTED 10/2/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's * * * religion." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(l). "Religion" includes "all aspects of religious observance and practice" unless "an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate" a religious observance or practice "without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). The question presented is whether an employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a "religious observance and practice" only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer's actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-5110
In the 2014 case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who was denied employment at an Abercrombie & Fitch store because her hijab violated the company's "Look Policy." The policy prohibited employees from wearing "caps" as they were deemed inconsistent with its casual preppy style but did not specifically address religious attire. Samantha Elauf wore a headscarf to her job interview but didn't explicitly state it was for religious reasons. The court held that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant if their need for accommodation is a motivating factor in the decision unless they can prove undue hardship on business operations would result from such accommodation. This ruling clarified that employers must accommodate applicants' and employees' religious practices even when not requested by them, provided these do not cause undue hardship.
In the dissenting opinion for the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Justice Thomas argued that Abercrombie could not have discriminated against Samantha Elauf based on her religious practices because it did not have actual knowledge of her need for a religious accommodation when it made its hiring decision. He contended that Title VII forbids adverse employment decisions made with a discriminatory motive and requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. In this case, he believed there was no evidence to suggest Abercrombie knew about Elauf’s religious practice or her need to wear a headscarf at work due to those beliefs when they decided not to hire her. Therefore, according to his interpretation of Title VII requirements, Abercrombie couldn't be held liable as they didn't act with intentional discrimination.
