Within the past hour, the United States Supreme Court announced its ruling in the EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch case. This is one of the premier and more talked about employment law cases that had been pending before the Supreme Court this term. (One to Keep an Eye On: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch).
Facts: For those not familiar with this one, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie. During the interview, she wore a head scarf but did not specifically state that as a Muslim, she wanted Abercrombie to give her a religious accommodation. The Abercrombie manager who interviewed her did not ask about the headscarf or Elauf's religion. After the manager consulted with her supervisor about the head scarf, the supervisor said Abercrombie employees were not allowed to wear hats of any kind as it violated Abercrombie's "Look Policy" which provided requirements on how employees had to dress (and prohibited the head scarf that Elauf wore). As a result, the manager scored Elauf low in the "appearance and sense of style" category and subsequently denied Elauf a job.
A Title VII suit was brought against Abercrombie on the grounds that Abercrombie failed to accommodate Elauf's religious practice. The EEOC prevailed at the District Court level but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that failure to accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his/her need for an accommodation.
Facts: For those not familiar with this one, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie. During the interview, she wore a head scarf but did not specifically state that as a Muslim, she wanted Abercrombie to give her a religious accommodation. The Abercrombie manager who interviewed her did not ask about the headscarf or Elauf's religion. After the manager consulted with her supervisor about the head scarf, the supervisor said Abercrombie employees were not allowed to wear hats of any kind as it violated Abercrombie's "Look Policy" which provided requirements on how employees had to dress (and prohibited the head scarf that Elauf wore). As a result, the manager scored Elauf low in the "appearance and sense of style" category and subsequently denied Elauf a job.
A Title VII suit was brought against Abercrombie on the grounds that Abercrombie failed to accommodate Elauf's religious practice. The EEOC prevailed at the District Court level but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that failure to accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his/her need for an accommodation.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that in order for a party to prevail in a disparate treatment claim, an applicant only needs to show that his/her need for accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had actual knowledge of his/her need. In order to reach this conclusion, the Court looked to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which required Elauf to show that Abercrombie failed to hire her because of her religion (including a religious practice). As the Court pointed out, Title VII contains no knowledge requirement on the part of the employer and instead prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the employer's knowledge. Consequently, the Court held that an employer cannot make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in an employment decision; doing so risks defending against a valid disparate treatment claim.
Judgment: The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the grounds that in order for a party to prevail in a disparate treatment claim, the actual knowledge of the employer does not need to be shown in order to prevail. Instead, the party only needs to show that his/her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision.
The Takeaway: Employers beware, as the Supreme Court noted, actual knowledge is not required in order for a claimant to bring a valid disparate treatment claim! As Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, an 8 - 1 ruling in favor the the EEOC I will note, the Court refused to read words into Title VII to suggest that an employer must have actual knowledge. Instead, the Court parsed the language of Title VII and held that a claimant only need prove that the need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. As a result, a claimant does not need to show that an employer had actual knowledge...since the statute does not require that, the Court refused to read that into the language of Title VII.
This lessened standard, in theory, makes it easier for a claimant to prove its disparate treatment claim. In this case, even though Elauf did not specifically request an accommodation (and Abercrombie was not aware of a requested accommodation), a disparate treatment claim was found to exist as a result of the religious practice being a motivating factor in the decision not to hire Elauf. Given the Court's refusal to read an "actual knowledge" standard into Title VII, this ruling was probably the right one to make. Employers take note, tread carefully when dealing with religious accommodation requests (even if one is not specifically requested...).
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Scalia
Date: June 1, 2015
A copy of the Court's opinion can be found here: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf
Judgment: The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the grounds that in order for a party to prevail in a disparate treatment claim, the actual knowledge of the employer does not need to be shown in order to prevail. Instead, the party only needs to show that his/her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision.
The Takeaway: Employers beware, as the Supreme Court noted, actual knowledge is not required in order for a claimant to bring a valid disparate treatment claim! As Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, an 8 - 1 ruling in favor the the EEOC I will note, the Court refused to read words into Title VII to suggest that an employer must have actual knowledge. Instead, the Court parsed the language of Title VII and held that a claimant only need prove that the need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. As a result, a claimant does not need to show that an employer had actual knowledge...since the statute does not require that, the Court refused to read that into the language of Title VII.
This lessened standard, in theory, makes it easier for a claimant to prove its disparate treatment claim. In this case, even though Elauf did not specifically request an accommodation (and Abercrombie was not aware of a requested accommodation), a disparate treatment claim was found to exist as a result of the religious practice being a motivating factor in the decision not to hire Elauf. Given the Court's refusal to read an "actual knowledge" standard into Title VII, this ruling was probably the right one to make. Employers take note, tread carefully when dealing with religious accommodation requests (even if one is not specifically requested...).
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Scalia
Date: June 1, 2015
A copy of the Court's opinion can be found here: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment