Summary – In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a position at a national retailer called Abercrombie & Fitch, which specializes in higher end casual trendy wear for young adults and children. Abercrombie & Fitch hires “models” which need to confirm to a “look” when hired. Specifically, the “look” was to reflect Abercrombie & Fitch’s style and forbids black clothing and head coverings such as baseball caps. When Ms. Elauf applied for the position she wore a hijab (head scarf). The hijab was not questioned in the interview nor did Ms. Elauf state that she was a practicing Muslim and would continue to wear her hijab daily in accordance to her religious practice.
After being interviewed by Heather Cooke, the store’s assistant manager, Ms. Elauf …show more content…
Elauf's behalf claiming that the company had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire Ms. Elauf because of her hijab. The district court granted summary judgment for the EEOC awarding Ms. Elauf $20,000 in compensatory damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the decision and held that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch because it was Ms. Elauf’s duty while being interviewed that she would require accommodation for her hijab. Also, it was noted in the appeal that the decision not to hire Ms. Elauf was solely based upon company policy and the assumption that the head covering was religious in nature does not constitute …show more content…
Such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In his opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote that, while the applicant has to show that the employer had knowledge of the applicant’s religious practice, the applicant does not have a duty to notify the employer. Justice Alito argued that the statutory language would not make sense without any knowledge requirement because such a reading would allow an employer to be held liable without
After being interviewed by Heather Cooke, the store’s assistant manager, Ms. Elauf …show more content…
Elauf's behalf claiming that the company had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire Ms. Elauf because of her hijab. The district court granted summary judgment for the EEOC awarding Ms. Elauf $20,000 in compensatory damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the decision and held that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch because it was Ms. Elauf’s duty while being interviewed that she would require accommodation for her hijab. Also, it was noted in the appeal that the decision not to hire Ms. Elauf was solely based upon company policy and the assumption that the head covering was religious in nature does not constitute …show more content…
Such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In his opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote that, while the applicant has to show that the employer had knowledge of the applicant’s religious practice, the applicant does not have a duty to notify the employer. Justice Alito argued that the statutory language would not make sense without any knowledge requirement because such a reading would allow an employer to be held liable without