Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie and Fitch Stores - Essay Example

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is a national chain apparel stores. The firm has a Look Policy that prohibits the black caps and clothing even though black cap was defined in the case. In case of deviation, the Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Claims that the human resource department establishes if the accommodation is granted or not. When Samantha Elauf who was a practising applied for a position at the firm she was wearing a hijab on the day of her interview. Her interviewer did not mention the hijab and lowered Samantha’s rating on the appearance section of the application. This drastically reduced her total score and Elauf was not hired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a case against the Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. claiming that the firm Abercrombie had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 by rejecting to hire Samanatha Elauf due to her hijab (headscarf). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces the federal regulations that prohibit employment discrimination. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an employer may be liable when he or she rejects either to select and hire or discharge a worker based on a religious practise or observance only if the employer has tangible knowledge that there was need for religious accommodation and the definite knowledge of the employer emanated from a direct notification from the employee or applicant. Walsh (741) shares the view that the firm argued that Samantha did not notify the interviewer that she needed an accommodation. However, Elauf who was the plaintiff was wearing the headscarf for religious reasons. More to the point, during the interview at Tusla, Oklahoma in 2008 the store manager never mentioned to Elauf issues relating to the hijab. It was only later on that the district supervisor argued that the headgear disqualified Elauf from the job. It can therefore be assumed that the recruitment team was aware that she was wearing the hijab for religious reasons. Initially the district court ruled in favour of Elauf. The established that the EEOC had determined all elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, such as the firm’s awareness of Samantha’s need for a religious accommodation, and also ruled that Abercrombie had failed to rebut the EEOC’s showing on those elements. However, the Tenth Circuit reversed the summary grant. Law cannot get religion right (Sullivan 138). The appellate court overturned the decision and sided with Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. However, an article by ( Miriam Nemetz) claimed that on October 2, 2014, the U.S Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86 to make a decision on whether an employer is liable according to Title VII for not accepting to recruit or lay off an employee when the employee does not provide the employer with a direct notification of the religious accommodation requirement. This shows the manner in which religion is misunderstood in the legal system. Sullivan (101) claims that the constitution tasks the courts to offer protection to religious practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 statute criminalizes acts of discrimination based on religion and needs the employers to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs or practices of employees except by doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business. Judge Antonin Scalia reviewed that it is the obligation of the employer to know the religious needs of the applicants and only shifted the burden to prospective employee so as to bring up the conflict. The civil rights groups as well as the religious organizations rallied behind Samantha. The apparel giant is liable for religious discrimination. Employees are not required to choose between keeping the job and their faith. To that effect, the verdict of the Tenth Circuit resulted in conflict with the other four circuits. It held that the employer is only supposed to accommodate an employee or applicant if directly informed by either of them. This shows how the correlation between law and religion are paradoxical. I agree with Sullivan that the American law arbitrarily defines what qualifies as religion and does not (Sullivan 150). As a consequence, there is conflict of religious practice and the neutral working rule of Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Sullivan is of the opinion that in the American court system the non-Protestant religious practices are not considered as religion. Sullivan writes, “The American Religions all look like evangelical Protestantism” (42). This explains why the Tenth Circuit ruled in favour of the firm since it did not register the Islamic attire as religious practice. As a consequence, it is not worthy legal protection. From the case, the employers are not supposed to discriminate either new or existing employee based on the religious affiliations. There is evidence that the clothing store did not hire Elauf as a result of her wearing the headgear. Elauf was not hired just because she was wearing religious attire, hijab. It is not only her freedom exercise to choose wearing the attire, but also according to the Sharia law for the Muslim women to wear the hijab. However, there is a Christian inflection in the American law (Sullivan 150). In this regard, the Christian religiosity is preferred over other religions, such as Islam as practiced by the plaintiff. In the Impossibility of Religious Freedom Sullivans arguments are that religious freedom for individuals implies the freedom from religious authority in addition to freedom governmental restriction on religious practise (Sullivan 138). In this regard Samantha Elauf was not given her religious freedom by the Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. when she notified not to report to work in a hijab. All religions are governed by secular legal regimes (Sullivan 3). According to the Islamic religion, a hijab is a prerequisite clothing for women regardless of their professions. It is a societal norm in Muslim nations to maintain a strict dress code for women. The hijab is considered as traditional norm in the Islamic world where the women are obliged to draw their outer garments that covers them from head to toe when going out as well as dressing in a modest manner (Hussain 23). Therefore, as evidenced by Sullivan’s arguments in the book The Impossibility of Religious Freedom it is not possible to ask someone the legality of what they consider as a religious practice. To them, that is a formal right of religious practice. To that effect, by Elauf wearing the headgear she considers it as an Islamic religious practice. The headscarf represented the religious belief of Elauf. Therefore, she was supposed to be granted the religious freedom of wearing what her Islamic religion prescribes of her. The US Equal Employment Opportunities Commission argues that a qualified applicant or existing worker with or without disability is a person has the capability to carry out the important functions of the job at hand. It is the duty of the employer to provide reasonable accommodations to the employee or applicant. Failure to do so is a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court argued that by allowing Samantha to wear the hijab it would face no unwarranted difficulties. During interviews, the employers have an obligation to reasonably accommodate the applicants. The US EEOC asserts that generally, an employer is not obliged to provide reasonable accommodation until the affected person asks for one. In the same way, if an employee or job applicant requires more than one accommodation, the employer has a choice of selecting one is less expensive or easier to provide. Even though Samantha actually did not inform the authorities of the religious accommodation during the interview, the employer was aware by observation of Samantha’s religious accommodations. Sullivan (140) posits that an individual is supposed to be offered religious freedom. Gatchel and Schultz (530) assert that the EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Case No. 433 the firm’s management was worried that Elauf wear the headscarf daily due to her religion. The American employment laws prohibit discrimination of existing workers or applicants based on the religious beliefs. During the hearing of the case, Justice Samuel Alito claimed that the notion that Samantha would wear the hijab while working for the Abercrombie & Fitch Stores is what made the recruitment team, especially the general manager who pointed out that Elauf’s marks be reduced due to dress code. Sullivan (155) argues that the law rarely gets it right when it come to religious freedom, especially the U.S judicial system. Therefore, the true religious freedom needs to be protected. But it is very difficult to do so in the American legal system, for this reason, the impossibility of religious freedom. Works Cited Miriam Nemetz. US Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. http://www.mayerbrown.com/US-Supreme-Court-Grants-Certiorari-in-emEqual-Employment-Opportunity-Commission-v-Abercrombie--Fitch-Stores-Incem-10-03-2014/>. Web. October 3, 2014. Accessed April 21, 2015. Gatchel, Robert and ‎Izabela Schultz. Handbook of Occupational Health and Wellness. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print. Hussain, J. Islam: Its Law and Society, Annandale: The Federation Press, 2011. Print. Sullivan, Winnifred. The Impossibility of Religious Freedom. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print. Walsh, David. Employment Law for Human Resource Practice. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print. Read More