Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
Case:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
Facts/Summary
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (A&F) followed a ‘Look Policy’ administering the way its employees dressed in office. One of the policy explicitly says that caps must not be worn but however they did not define the term ‘cap’. The problem aroused when a practicing Muslim named Samantha Elauf, wore a headscarf due to her religious beliefs (Oyez, n.d.). One day, Elauf decided to apply at Abercrombie and wore a headscarf during the interview. After going through the interview, Abercrombie gave Elauf good ratings which was sufficient for her to work for the company. However, the store’s assistant manager named Heather Cooke was worried that Elauf’s …show more content…
Mr. Johnson however, indicated that religious beliefs or not, it is a headscarf and it is just like any other headwear and therefor it is against Abercrombie’s Look Policy and because of it, Elauf was not hired. On October 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against A&F alleging them on violating Title VII. To be specific, Abercrombie was accused by EEOC that they did not want to hire Elauf so that they could avoid accommodating a religious practice (EEOC, …show more content…
(Oyez, n.d.)
The United States Supreme Court ruled that Abercrombie was guilty because under Title VII on June 1, 2015. It states that it is illegal and unlawful for an employer to reject or otherwise to discriminate any individual with their privileges of employment due to their race, sex, religion, colour or nationality. Besides that, classifying or segregating their employees for employment in any way that would deprive any opportunities or otherwise affect his status as employee, because of their race, sex, religion, colour or nationality is also considered unlawful. (Milak, 2015)
The Supreme Court decided that an employer can be answerable if one specific characteristics is the factor of a negative employment decision based on Title VII (EEOC, 2017). At the end of the day, it is based on the employer’s motive and not on the employer’s knowledge. As a result to that, Abercrombie has violated Title VII because Elauf was wearing a headscarf for her religious practice and it was clearly seen as a motivating factor for her in not getting a job at Abercrombie with them not making an accommodation for
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
Facts/Summary
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (A&F) followed a ‘Look Policy’ administering the way its employees dressed in office. One of the policy explicitly says that caps must not be worn but however they did not define the term ‘cap’. The problem aroused when a practicing Muslim named Samantha Elauf, wore a headscarf due to her religious beliefs (Oyez, n.d.). One day, Elauf decided to apply at Abercrombie and wore a headscarf during the interview. After going through the interview, Abercrombie gave Elauf good ratings which was sufficient for her to work for the company. However, the store’s assistant manager named Heather Cooke was worried that Elauf’s …show more content…
Mr. Johnson however, indicated that religious beliefs or not, it is a headscarf and it is just like any other headwear and therefor it is against Abercrombie’s Look Policy and because of it, Elauf was not hired. On October 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against A&F alleging them on violating Title VII. To be specific, Abercrombie was accused by EEOC that they did not want to hire Elauf so that they could avoid accommodating a religious practice (EEOC, …show more content…
(Oyez, n.d.)
The United States Supreme Court ruled that Abercrombie was guilty because under Title VII on June 1, 2015. It states that it is illegal and unlawful for an employer to reject or otherwise to discriminate any individual with their privileges of employment due to their race, sex, religion, colour or nationality. Besides that, classifying or segregating their employees for employment in any way that would deprive any opportunities or otherwise affect his status as employee, because of their race, sex, religion, colour or nationality is also considered unlawful. (Milak, 2015)
The Supreme Court decided that an employer can be answerable if one specific characteristics is the factor of a negative employment decision based on Title VII (EEOC, 2017). At the end of the day, it is based on the employer’s motive and not on the employer’s knowledge. As a result to that, Abercrombie has violated Title VII because Elauf was wearing a headscarf for her religious practice and it was clearly seen as a motivating factor for her in not getting a job at Abercrombie with them not making an accommodation for