Supreme Court Case 8-1 Decision Reversed The US

On June 1st 2015 the Supreme Court issued a decision that could affect the hiring policies and procedures of many employers. The 8-1 decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s prior decision that under Title VII an employer is not required to provide a religious accommodation unless the employer had actual knowledge. The Supreme Court case was brought by the EEOC on behalf of Samantha Eluaf who was not hired by Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F) because her religious garb violated the company’s dress policy. Specifically, she wore a head scarf which was problematic because A&F’s dress policy prohibited head wear. The primary issue in the case was whether the company could be liable if it did not have actual knowledge of the need for accommodation. A&F argued that it did not know that the individual needed an accommodation. However, the Court held that under Title VII it did not matter if the company had knowledge of the religious status of the individual so long as the motive for not hiring the individual was based in any way on the individuals religion. The Court concluded that A&E’s motive for not hiring Samantha was to maintain its dress code. …show more content…
The Supreme Court found that A&F had not hired the individual because it did not want to accommodate the head scarf. The Court determined that this was an unlawful motive under Title VII. Following this decision, employers that reasonably suspect a potential employee will need a special accommodation and consequently do not hire the person, may be found in violation of Title VII. However, employers who know about the need for a religious accommodation but decide not hire the individual based on other verifiable reasons are not likely to be in violation of Title