TANNER AND ASSOCIATES, PC
  • Home
  • About
    • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Attorneys
    • Rod Tanner
    • Charles R. Hairston
  • News
  • Questionnaire

Supreme Court Rules Against Employer in Religious Accommodation Case

6/10/2015

 
By Edith Thomas

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a religious accommodation claim, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The opinion was authored by Scalia and joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, with a concurring opinion by Alito and Thomas filing an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The plaintiff, Samantha Elauf, is a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf. Abercrombie interviewed Elauf for an in-store position, and she received a rating that qualified her to be hired. Elauf was ultimately not hired because the store’s assistant manager and district manager were concerned that her headscarf would conflict with Abercrombie’s Look Policy, a dress code for employees. This decision not to hire Elauf was made despite the fact that the assistant manager informed the district manager that she believed Elauf wore the headscarf because of her faith. No one from Abercrombie ever spoke to Elauf about the reason she wore a headscarf. The EEOC sued Abercrombie on Elauf’s behalf under Title VII, and the District Court granted the EEOC summary judgment on liability and held a trial on damages. 798 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (2011). On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment. 731 F.3d 1106 (2013).

Abercrombie’s main argument was that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment, or intentional discrimination, without first showing that an employer has actual knowledge of the applicant’s need for an accommodation. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that an applicant only need show that the need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. The Supreme Court’s decision turns on the difference between motive and knowledge, and holds that an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Referring back to the text of Title VII itself, the Supreme Court stated:
Instead, the intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor's knowledge. Motive and knowledge are separate concepts. An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.

E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 14-86, 2015 WL 2464053, at *3 (June 1, 2015).

In this case, since Abercrombie employees clearly believed that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons, they cannot escape liability just because Elauf did not specifically ask for a religious accommodation or because no one asked Elauf if she did in fact wear the headscarf for religious reasons.


Comments are closed.

    Archives

    May 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    November 2020
    May 2020
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015

    Categories

    All
    ADEA
    Age Discrimination
    Ask The Experts
    At Will Employment
    At-Will Employment
    Awards
    Best Lawyers
    Department Of Labor
    Discrimination
    EEOC
    Employment Contract
    Executive Order
    Fair Labor Standards Act
    FMLA
    Gender Discrimination
    Litigation
    Mandatory Arbitration Agreement
    National Labor Relations Act
    National Labor Relations Board
    NLRA
    Non Compete
    Non-Compete
    Northwestern
    Organization
    Overtime
    Papers
    Persuader Rule
    Podcast
    Religious Accommodation
    Service Contract Act
    Sexual Harassment
    Social Media
    Supreme Court
    Texas Employment Lawyers Association
    Title VII
    University Of Texas School Of Law
    Whistleblower

    RSS Feed

6300 Ridglea Place, Suite 407, Fort Worth, Texas 76116   |   817.377.8833 (phone)   |   817.377.1136 (fax)

​All potential clients are required to fill out an intake questionnaire before meeting with an attorney.

The information you obtain at this site or through any link on this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Every legal situation is different and you should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.  Please see the Terms of Use for more information.


© 2017 Tanner and Associates, P.C.