Skip to main content

One to Keep an Eye On: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, United States Supreme Court


As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  Samantha Elauf applied for a job at and Abercrombie & Fitch Kids store in 2008.  At the interview, Elauf wore a head scarf but did not specifically say that, as a Muslim, she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation.  Nevertheless, Abercrombie denied Elauf the job on the grounds that wearing the scarf vioalted Abercrombie's "Look Policy" for its employees.  For those wondering, the "Look Policy" is Abercrombie's requirement that its employees dress in clothing that is consistent with the kinds of clothing that Abercrombie sells in its stores, identified as "a classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing." 

The EEOC subsequently filed a suit on Elauf's behalf in 2009 on the grounds that Abercrombie's "Look Policy" and decision not to hire Elauf violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Looking Back:  The federal district judge who initially heard the suit granted summary judgment in favor of Elauf and the EEOC.  However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation to prevail upon her claim, which she had apparently failed to do.  As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.

The Main Issue:  Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a "religious observance and practice" only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer's actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.

Lower Court Opinion:  http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-5110.pdf

Current Status:  On October 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition from the EEOC and agreed to hear the case. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more