Case Study Of Abercrombie And Fitch Case

analytical Essay
1462 words
1462 words

Facts of the Case: In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., who as part of their “Look Policy” prohibit the use of caps. Elauf, as part of her religious practice, wore a headscarf to the interview. She was interviewed by assistant manager Heather Cooke, who gave her a score that qualified her to be hired. Cooke, however, was worried that Elauf’s headscarf was against the store’s policy and called her district manager Randall Johnson. She informed Johnson of her belief that Elauf wore her headscarf because of her religion, and Johnson replied that headwear whether it was religious or not violated the “Look Policy” of the store. Elauf with the help of the EEOC sued Abercrombie on the grounds of religious discrimination. The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an agency established by the government of the United States that imposes federal laws that make it …show more content…

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that samantha elauf applied for a job at abercrombie & fitch, inc., who as part of their "look policy" prohibit the use of caps.
  • Explains that the northern district of oklahoma held the trial court and awarded $20,000 in damages. abercrombie appealed to the tenth circuit court of appeals who reversed and granted summary judgement.
  • Explains that the court was interpreting a statute, title vii of the civil rights act of 1964, in which an employer is forbidden from discriminating an employee or employer because of their race, religion, sex or national origin.
  • Explains how the court reversed and remanded the 10th circuit judgement. the court held that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer's refusal to hire them.
  • Analyzes how the court based their decision on the statutory law written under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964.
  • Explains the difference between concurring and dissenting opinions. justice alito wrote a concurring opinion, with justice thomas, j who concurred only in part.
  • Analyzes how justice alito discusses the burden of proof in the case of abercrombie.

The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other

Get Access