Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2016
ISSN
1067-7666
Publisher
University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Language
en-US
Abstract
In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the plaintiff, Samantha Elauf, was rejected from a sales clerk position because her headscarf clashed with Abercrombie & Fitch’s employee dress code.1 This code, Abercrombie’s “Look Policy,” required all employees to dress in a “classic East Coast collegiate style” and prohibited “caps.”2 However, Elauf, a practicing Muslim, wore a headscarf (or “hijab”) as a representation and obligation of her religion.3 After Abercrombie rejected her employment application, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued the company on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a Title VII violation for failure to accommodate a religious practice. The highly publicized case that ensued sparked a national debate about the scope of religious accommodations in the workplace. Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle the controversy.4 In a nearly unanimous decision, the Court held that Title VII only requires job applicants to show that their need for a religious accommodation was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s adverse decision.5 Moreover, the employer need not have “actual knowledge” of the need.6 With this plaintiff-friendly rationale, the Court remanded the case, which later settled.7 This case note explores what equal employment and religious freedom advocates really took home—and what remains to be accomplished. All in all, the Court’s holding in Abercrombie may not have substantially increased protections for religious liberty in the workplace, but it was an incremental step in the right direction.
Recommended Citation
Elizabeth King,
Recent Cases: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.: Religious Accommodation in the Workplace
,
37
Berkley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
327
(2016).
Available at:
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38Q85C
