The United States is striving to become more inclusive of all people. This ideal is highlighted by a Supreme Court case involving Abercrombie & Fitch. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this suit on behalf of Samantha Elauf in 2009. The case alleged that Ms. Elauf was denied employment because of her religious practice of wearing a hijab, a type of religious headscarf. In June 2015, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, stated that an employer can’t refuse employment in order to avoid a religious accommodation (EEOC 2015). The case involving Ms. Elauf worked its way through the legal system for about 6 years. A district court originally
agreed with the plaintiff, but this decision was overturned by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court was appealed and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In July, 2015, Abercrombie & Fitch reached an …show more content…
Two of the cases were settled (Demby, 2015). Abercrombie & Fitch maintained that the headscarf did not adhere to the company’s “Look Policy” (Hurley. 2015). Abercrombie & Fitch is a clothing retailer that has a dress code that they refer to as a “Look Policy”. It uses this policy to dictate what its sales associates, referred to as “Models”, can wear on the sales floor (Demby, 2015). Abercrombie & Fitch also uses this policy to promote the retailer’s brand (Jamieson, 2015).
CEO Mike Jeffries has made comments that are not indicative of a corporation that strives for diversity. He said that Abercrombie & Fitch only wants to hire good looking people because good looking people attract other good looking people. He wants the store to market to cool, good looking people and nobody else. Abercrombie & Fitch is exclusionary. These comments from an interview in 2006 have resurfaced in the media with this recent Supreme Court decision (Goldstein,
agreed with the plaintiff, but this decision was overturned by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court was appealed and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In July, 2015, Abercrombie & Fitch reached an …show more content…
Two of the cases were settled (Demby, 2015). Abercrombie & Fitch maintained that the headscarf did not adhere to the company’s “Look Policy” (Hurley. 2015). Abercrombie & Fitch is a clothing retailer that has a dress code that they refer to as a “Look Policy”. It uses this policy to dictate what its sales associates, referred to as “Models”, can wear on the sales floor (Demby, 2015). Abercrombie & Fitch also uses this policy to promote the retailer’s brand (Jamieson, 2015).
CEO Mike Jeffries has made comments that are not indicative of a corporation that strives for diversity. He said that Abercrombie & Fitch only wants to hire good looking people because good looking people attract other good looking people. He wants the store to market to cool, good looking people and nobody else. Abercrombie & Fitch is exclusionary. These comments from an interview in 2006 have resurfaced in the media with this recent Supreme Court decision (Goldstein,