Imagine that you apply for a job. You have the requirements, even more than the necessary requirements, but you are turned away because you do not fit the looks that they have. Because of your religious wear, it causes a problem with “the look,” that the store is trying to achieve. This case ran through multiple courts and it eventually reached a decision. But since the procedure to come towards a conclusion took so long that there were multiple judgments throughout the full case.
The reason that this case came to be was because of a young girl by the name of Samantha Elauf. She was applying for a job at an Abercrombie and Fitch store but was turned away because of her religion wear. Samantha is a practicing Muslim and wears the natural headscarf. But since her headscarf, conflicted with the look that the store was trying to achieve it developed into a major conflict. Ms. Elauf went public with what happened to her, the EEOC gained interest and arranged a lawsuit on the account of Elauf. The EEOC stands for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they are held accountable for implementing the federal laws that "make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit" (About EEOC). The EEOC is allowed to investigate any type of charges that are against an employer that go against the federal law. This started in the District Courts, the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit gave Abercrombie and Fitch the judgment, after taking it back from the EEOC. The EEOC sued Abercrombie because they broke the law, of the Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 Stat. 253. Meaning that the employer is not allowed to refuse to hire a person applying for the job because of their "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or to limit segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive any individual of employment opportunities adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such …show more content…
It started in the District Court, the Tenth Circuit. Where in this court, Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, won the judgment. Now Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. According to a concurring opinion written my Justice Alito, the court had to interpret the meaning behind religion. Since religion was said twice in the case with different implications behind it led to further interpretation. As stated in the concurring opinion, the rule is "When these two provisions are put together the following rule...results: An employer may not take an adverse employment action against an applicant or employee because of any aspect of that individual's religious observance or practice unless the employer demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate that observance or practice without undue hardship" (Equal Employment Opportunity v. Abercrombie and Fitch, 2015, p. 1 (Alito, J. concurring)). Justice Alito points out that even if in Elauf was to wear a scarf for other reason Abercrombie would still be held accountable for their actions. The accouterment does not allow discrimination of any
The reason that this case came to be was because of a young girl by the name of Samantha Elauf. She was applying for a job at an Abercrombie and Fitch store but was turned away because of her religion wear. Samantha is a practicing Muslim and wears the natural headscarf. But since her headscarf, conflicted with the look that the store was trying to achieve it developed into a major conflict. Ms. Elauf went public with what happened to her, the EEOC gained interest and arranged a lawsuit on the account of Elauf. The EEOC stands for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they are held accountable for implementing the federal laws that "make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit" (About EEOC). The EEOC is allowed to investigate any type of charges that are against an employer that go against the federal law. This started in the District Courts, the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit gave Abercrombie and Fitch the judgment, after taking it back from the EEOC. The EEOC sued Abercrombie because they broke the law, of the Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 Stat. 253. Meaning that the employer is not allowed to refuse to hire a person applying for the job because of their "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or to limit segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive any individual of employment opportunities adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such …show more content…
It started in the District Court, the Tenth Circuit. Where in this court, Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, won the judgment. Now Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. According to a concurring opinion written my Justice Alito, the court had to interpret the meaning behind religion. Since religion was said twice in the case with different implications behind it led to further interpretation. As stated in the concurring opinion, the rule is "When these two provisions are put together the following rule...results: An employer may not take an adverse employment action against an applicant or employee because of any aspect of that individual's religious observance or practice unless the employer demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate that observance or practice without undue hardship" (Equal Employment Opportunity v. Abercrombie and Fitch, 2015, p. 1 (Alito, J. concurring)). Justice Alito points out that even if in Elauf was to wear a scarf for other reason Abercrombie would still be held accountable for their actions. The accouterment does not allow discrimination of any