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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more