Samantha Elauf was nervous about a job interview for Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008, because of her headscarf and Muslim faith but she never knew that it would turn out the way it did. A friend of hers actually recommended her for the job because she thought she was very qualified and well equipped for the job. But, from the start, Samantha was apprehensive about wearing her headscarf, even before she interviewed. She asked her friend if she thought it would be ok for her to wear her headscarf to the interview; her friend said it would be fine as long as it wasn’t black. This was because like many retailers Abercrombie has a “look policy” that was aimed to promote what it calls its "classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing.” When Elauf
…show more content…
Cooke stated that she assumed she was Muslim because of the headscarf, but the manager argued that they shouldn’t hire her because it “violated store policy” to wear a headscarf. A federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Elauf's behalf arguing that the store had discriminated on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law makes it illegal for an employer to “refuse or fail to hire” an individual because of their religion, unless he/she is unable to reasonably accommodate a religious observance or practice. Abercrombie does not dispute that Elauf was denied employment because of her headscarf. The company argued that its "look policy" is neutral on religion, but that employees are not allowed to wear headgear. Although Elauf won at the district court level, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Abercrombie holding that the employer could not be held liable, because Elauf never informed the company that she wore the scarf for her religious beliefs and that she need an accommodation because her headscarf conflicted with the store's clothing
Cooke stated that she assumed she was Muslim because of the headscarf, but the manager argued that they shouldn’t hire her because it “violated store policy” to wear a headscarf. A federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Elauf's behalf arguing that the store had discriminated on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law makes it illegal for an employer to “refuse or fail to hire” an individual because of their religion, unless he/she is unable to reasonably accommodate a religious observance or practice. Abercrombie does not dispute that Elauf was denied employment because of her headscarf. The company argued that its "look policy" is neutral on religion, but that employees are not allowed to wear headgear. Although Elauf won at the district court level, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Abercrombie holding that the employer could not be held liable, because Elauf never informed the company that she wore the scarf for her religious beliefs and that she need an accommodation because her headscarf conflicted with the store's clothing