PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 25, 2015; Decided June 1, 2015
Full case name	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
Docket no.	14-86
Citations	575 U.S. 768 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2028; 192 L. Ed. 2d 35
Case history
Prior	798 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (N.D. Okla. 2011); reversed, 731 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 44 (2014).
Holding
	To prevail in a Title VII disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had knowledge of their need.
Court membership
	Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy; Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito; Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence	Alito (in judgment)
Concur/dissent	Thomas
Laws applied
	Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. 768 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding a Muslim American woman, Samantha Elauf, who was refused a job at Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008 because she wore a headscarf, which conflicted with the company's dress code.^[1] The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–1 in Elauf's favor on June 1, 2015.^[2]

Background

In 2008, Elauf, then 17 years old, applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. During her interview with the company, she was wearing a hijab (headscarf), but did not say why.^[1] The woman interviewing her, Heather Cooke, was initially impressed with Elauf, but also concerned about her headscarf.^[3] Cooke had told the manager of the store that she thought Elauf was wearing the scarf for religious reasons, but the manager responded that employees were not allowed to wear hats at work, and so declined to hire her.^[4]

In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Elauf's behalf.^[5] This led to a lawsuit in a federal district court that resulted in Elauf receiving $20,000 in damages.^[6]^[7] However, this decision was later reversed by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch on the basis that Elauf did not provide the company with information about her need for an accommodation.^[8]^[7]

Opinion of the Court

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Elauf. In an opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Elauf did not have to explicitly request an accommodation to obtain protection from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring.^[1]

Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, stating that evidence of Abercrombie's knowledge of Elauf's religious practice was sufficient grounds to rule against Abercrombie.^[9] Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.^[1] Thomas agreed with the majority's interpretation that Title VII protects against "intentional discrimination" against a particular religious group, but felt that Abercrombie did not really engage in that here because their dress code was a religion-neutral policy that affected all potential applicants.^[10] This ruling revived the lawsuit Elauf had filed against the company.^[2]