In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court made it easier for employees to prove religious discrimination in the workplace.
As we have previously discussed on this blog, Abercrombie has faced numerous religious discrimination lawsuits in recent years over its “Look Policy.” In 2005, litigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) resulted in a six-year consent decree and $40 million being paid to a plaintiff class of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and women who were excluded from hiring or promotions.
In the latest employment suit, the EEOC alleged that Abercrombie failed to hire applicant Samantha Elauf because she wore a headscarf to her interview, which violated the clothing store’s dress code. The suit specifically allege that Abercrombie’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs or practices of employees unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business.
In its defense, Abercrombie argued that it could not be held liable for discrimination because Elauf never mentioned that she wore it for religious reasons. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that ordinarily an employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia characterized the case as a “really easy” one. The Court held that an employer can be held liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even through the employee has not made an express request. Specifically, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
As Justice Scalia explains, “An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, 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.”
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The Supreme Court Recently Made A Decision On Religious Discrimination In The Workplace
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court made it easier for employees to prove religious discrimination in the workplace.
As we have previously discussed on this blog, Abercrombie has faced numerous religious discrimination lawsuits in recent years over its “Look Policy.” In 2005, litigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) resulted in a six-year consent decree and $40 million being paid to a plaintiff class of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and women who were excluded from hiring or promotions.
In the latest employment suit, the EEOC alleged that Abercrombie failed to hire applicant Samantha Elauf because she wore a headscarf to her interview, which violated the clothing store’s dress code. The suit specifically allege that Abercrombie’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs or practices of employees unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business.
In its defense, Abercrombie argued that it could not be held liable for discrimination because Elauf never mentioned that she wore it for religious reasons. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that ordinarily an employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia characterized the case as a “really easy” one. The Court held that an employer can be held liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even through the employee has not made an express request. Specifically, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
As Justice Scalia explains, “An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, 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.”
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
