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

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more