Elauf's Argument Against Discrimination

In an interview after the courts ruling, The EEOC General Counsel, David Lopez stated, "We were extremely pleased with the Supreme Court ruling in our favor, which has reinforced our longstanding efforts to enforce Title VII's prohibition against religious discrimination," The EEOC continues to protect individuals against discrimination from employers, by investigating the accusations and trying to settle the charges. If they are not successful, they have the authority to file lawsuits. They also strive to prevent discrimination before it happens, by “outreach, education and technical assistance programs.”
This case also provides job applicants with a new level of civil rights protections when it comes to religious prejudice and religious accommodations in employment. For example, a job applicant whose religious …show more content…
That way, both parties would have gotten the facts right and Abercrombie would have actual knowledge. Instead of an assumption which was ruled by the court as a motive not to hire her. However, instead of asking directly, if an applicant needs an accommodation because of their religion, interviewers should describe the relevant workplace policies, such as dress codes, grooming requirements, scheduling demands. Then, inquire whether applicants complied with those policies. This allows the employees to openly request an accommodation, while enabling the employer to obtain sufficient information and avoiding any discrimination claims. For example, employers can be held liable for discrimination, while being complete unaware that they are discriminating. Nonetheless, if they ask each applicant about their religion, that could lead to a separate discrimination claim. This could prompt undesirable lawsuits because such questions could incite suspicion of religious discrimination or be can be viewed as an act of discrimination towards