Supreme Court Decides Against Abercrombie In Hijab Case
A case that has gained a lot of national attention, the U.S. Supreme court reversed a decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had granted summary judgment for Abercrombie & Fitch.
Samantha Elauf had applied to work at Abercrombie, and wore a head scarf to her interview. She never mentioned the scarf, or her Muslim faith, and the manager interviewing her never asked about it. However, after the interview, the manager was concerned that the head scarf would violate the strict “Look Policy” of the store.
So, the manager consulted with the District Manager and said she thought the candidate wore it for religious reasons. The District Manager advised her that the scarf would violate the “Look Policy,” and Ms. Elauf was not hired.
Abercrombie had argued that wearing the headscarf did not make Abercrombie aware that Ms. Elauf needed an accommodation. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the company, holding that Abercrombie could not be liable for failing to accommodate Ms. Elauf, because she never mentioned her Muslim faith or the need for an accommodation in the interview.
However, in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court said that a company knowing of the need for an accommodation is not the deciding factor. Instead, a plaintiff must only demonstrate that the applicant’s potential need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
What employers need to take away from this decision is the understanding that even when you are basing your decision off assumptions, if trying to avoid accommodating applicants is a motivating factor in your decision not to hire, you may still found to be in violation of Title VII.
