religious discrimination in the workplace

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER V. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC, 575 U.S. 14 (2015)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER V. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.

No. 14-86

June 1, 2015

575 U.S. 14

In this case, the plaintiff is Samantha Elauf, a job applicant at the Abercrombie &Fitch Stores, Inc. The respondent is the employer, and the national clothing stores chain, which needs it employees to conform with the look policy, which reflects the style of the store and prohibits black caps and clothing, although the term cap meaning never got defined within the company’s look system. When the query concerning the look policy arose through the interview session, the interviewer gets instructed to contact the human resource department that determines whether the accommodation becomes granted or not. Samantha, a staunch Muslim, did apply for the position at Abercrombie &Fitch Stores, Inc. In the process, she put on a headscarf, every day, as well as in her interview. Ms. Elauf never mentioned her hijab during the interview, and also did not specify that the plaintiff would require an accommodation from the look regulation. Additionally, she never indicated the headscarf during the interview but phoned her district manager who went ahead and told Ms. Elauf to lower her ratings on the look applicant section that decreased her overall marks and locked her from getting hired. Page 575 U.S. 14

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission thus filed a claim on behalf of Samantha Elauf against the respondent, claiming the breaching of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act forbids a potential employer or boss from rejecting to hire the job applicant due to his or her religious belief or faith when such practices can never get accommodated with no undue hardship. The defendant argued that Samantha had a duty of informing the interviewer that she needed an accommodation from the appearance policy and the hijab was never a sincerely held spiritual belief expression. 575 U.S. 14-86

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission prevailed in the United States District Court; however, the Tenth Circuit upturned, awarding the defendant the summary judgment based on the fact that failure-to-accommodate responsibility occurs if the job applicant offers the boss with the real knowledge of his or her accommodation need. However, the Title VII has no requirement of Knowledge. Under this holding, the judges overruled the case.

The Court’s Decision

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner V. Abercrombie &Fitch Stores, Inc case, the breached claim is only one that includes revenging against an employee who took part in a secured conflicting role against the religious prejudices. For example, the respondent declined to hire Ms. Elauf the sales role because she never complied with the elements of religious discrimination within the stores (Goodwin, Chenhall, &Bilbrey Jr, 2015). Only this one case mediated and further went to court. The Supreme Court, therefore, ruled against the defendant on the ground that the disparate-treatment Title VII provision does not incorporate a requirement of knowledge but prohibits particular motives, despite the bosses’ knowledge concerning the job applicant thus creating an assertive duty of accommodating religious practices. Conclusively, the surge within the court cases happens as a result of the increasing number of managers and employers who become in agreement with each other.

power point with more details no more 3 slide