The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Abercrombie & Fitch for denying a sales job to an American Muslim woman because she wore a headscarf, holding that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant if motivated by avoiding the need to accommodate a religious practice.
Such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the high court said in an 8-1 decision, and remanded the case to a lower court. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented with part of the ruling.
“An employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the court’s opinion. “The employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”
The case arose when Samantha Elauf, then a teenager who wore a headscarf or hijab as part of her Muslim faith, applied for a job at the retailer in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. She was denied hire for failing to conform to the company’s “Look Policy,” which Abercrombie said banned head coverings.
She filed a charge with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging religious discrimination, and the EEOC filed suit against the clothing-store chain.
The district court granted summary judgment to the EEOC after holding that the evidence established that Elauf wore the hijab as part of her Muslim faith, that Abercrombie & Fitch was on notice of the religious nature of her practice and that it refused to hire her as a result. A jury subsequently awarded Elauf damages for the discrimination.
Abercrombie appealed, and a divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled for the store. The court held that Abercrombie was not on sufficient notice of Elauf’s religious practice because, despite correctly “assuming” that Elauf wore a headscarf because of her religion, the store did not receive explicit, verbal notice of a conflict between the “Look Policy” and her religious practice from Elauf.
The US Solicitor General, who conducts EEOC litigation at the Supreme Court, asked the court to hear the case. Given the number of religious discrimination charges received each year, the government believed that the court of appeals’ ruling would have a particularly significant negative impact in cases involving job applicants whose religions impose requirement concerning grooming or dress, the EEOC said in a statement.
“At its root, this case is about defending the quintessentially American principles of religious freedom and tolerance,” EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said. “This decision is a victory for our increasingly diverse society and we applaud Samantha Elauf’s courage and tenacity in pursuing this matter.”
