Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

Last updated
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 25, 2015
Decided June 1, 2015
Full case nameEqual Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
Docket no. 14-86
Citations575 U.S. 768 ( more )
135 S. Ct. 2028; 192 L. Ed. 2d 35
Case history
Prior798 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (N.D. Okla. 2011); reversed, 731 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 44 (2014).
Holding
To prevail in a Title VII disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had knowledge of their need.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment)
Concur/dissentThomas
Laws applied
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. 768 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding a Muslim American woman, Samantha Elauf, who was refused a job at Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008 because she wore a head scarf, which conflicted with the company's dress code. [1] The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–1 in Elauf's favor on June 1, 2015. [2]

Contents

Background

In 2008, Elauf, then 17 years old, applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. During her interview with the company, she was wearing a head scarf, but did not say why. [1] The woman interviewing her, Heather Cooke, was initially impressed with Elauf, but also concerned about her head scarf. [3] Cooke had told the manager of the store that she thought Elauf was wearing the scarf for religious reasons, but the manager responded that employees were not allowed to wear hats at work, and so declined to hire her. [4]

In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Elauf's behalf. [5] This led to a lawsuit in a federal district court that resulted in Elauf receiving $20,000 in damages. [6] [7] However, this decision was later reversed by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch on the basis that Elauf did not provide the company with information about her need for an accommodation. [8] [7]

Opinion of the Court

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Elauf. In an opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Elauf did not have to explicitly request an accommodation to obtain protection from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring. [1]

Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, stating that evidence of Abercrombie's knowledge of Elauf's religious practice was sufficient grounds to rule against Abercrombie. [9] Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part. [1] Thomas agreed with the majority's interpretation that Title VII protects against "intentional discrimination" against a particular religious group, but felt that Abercrombie did not really engage in that here because their dress code was a religion-neutral policy that affected all potential applicants. [10] This ruling revived the lawsuit Elauf had filed against the company. [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990</span> 1990 U.S. civil rights law

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hijab</span> Traditional Islamic head covering or veil for women

In modern usage, hijab generally refers to various head coverings conventionally worn by many Muslim women. While a hijab can come in many forms, it often specifically refers to a headscarf, wrapped around the head, covering the hair, neck and ears, but leaving the face visible. Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry. This means that hijab is not obligatory in front of the father, brothers, grandfathers, uncles or young children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</span> United States government agency enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.

Islamic clothing is clothing that is interpreted as being in accordance with the teachings of Islam. Muslims wear a wide variety of clothing, which is influenced not only by religious considerations, but also by practical, cultural, social, and political factors. In modern times, some Muslims have adopted clothing based on Western traditions, while others wear modern forms of traditional Muslim dress, which over the centuries has typically included long, flowing garments. Besides its practical advantages in the climate of the Middle East, loose-fitting clothing is also generally regarded as conforming to Islamic teachings, which stipulate that body areas which are sexual in nature must be hidden from public view. Traditional dress for Muslim men has typically covered at least the head and the area between the waist and the knees, while women's islamic dress is to conceal the hair and the body from the ankles to the neck. Some Muslim women also cover their face. However, other Muslims believe that the Quran does not mandate that women need to wear a hijab or a burqa.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination. It was a landmark case for retaliation claims. It set a precedent for claims which could be considered retaliatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hollister Co.</span> American lifestyle brand owned by Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Hollister Co., often advertised as Hollister or HCo., is a retail brand owned by Abercrombie & Fitch Co, selling apparel, accessories, and fragrances. Goods are available in-store and through the company's online store. Hollister uses a narrative of being founded in 1922 in Hollister, California; however, it was founded in 2000 in Ohio by Abercrombie.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abercrombie & Fitch</span> American retail company

Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) is an American lifestyle retailer that focuses on casual wear. Its headquarters are in New Albany, Ohio. The company operates three other offshoot brands: Abercrombie Kids, Hollister Co., and Gilly Hicks. As of February 2020, the company operated 854 stores across all brands.

Crawford v. Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects an employee who opposes unlawful sexual harassment, but does not report the harassment themself.

<i>Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.</i>

The lawsuit González v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 3:03-cv-02817, filed in June 2003, alleged that the nationwide retailer Abercrombie & Fitch "violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practice that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment." The female and Latino, African-American, and Asian American plaintiffs charged that they were either not hired despite strong qualifications or if hired "they were steered not to sales positions out front, but to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs, stocking and cleaning up." The case generated national press coverage, including a profile on the television program 60 Minutes.

The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the "ecclesiastical exception," is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment relationships with its "ministers." As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and seeks to both (1) safeguard religious groups' "freedom. .. to select their own ministers," a principle rooted in the Free Exercise Clause, and (2) prevent "government involvement in [] ecclesiastical decisions," a prohibition stemming from the Establishment Clause. When applied, the exception operates to give religious institutions an affirmative defense when sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as "ministers;" for example, female priests cannot sue the Catholic church to force their hiring. However, exactly which types of employees should qualify as a "ministers," and thus how broadly the exception should apply, was the subject of recent litigation before the Supreme Court.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court unanimously ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations' selection of religious leaders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eric Dreiband</span> American lawyer (born 1963)

Eric Stefan Dreiband is an American lawyer. While a partner at Jones Day, he was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. The Senate confirmed his appointment on October 11, 2018.

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v. Biel, both arose from rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination.

<i>White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch</i> 2022 American documentary film

White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch is a 2022 American documentary film made for Netflix and directed by Alison Klayman. The film focuses on Abercrombie & Fitch's massive success and controversies during the late 1990s to 2000s. It was released on April 19, 2022.

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding religious liberty and employment accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) had established that an employer could deny an employee religious exemptions from work if they could show "undue hardship" in making the accommodation, a vague phrase at the center of Groff. The case was decided unanimously for Groff by the Court. While generally upholding Trans World, the court clarified that increased costs that are more than 'de minimis' are not sufficient to demonstrate 'undue hardship', and that the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that granting the exemption would incur "substantial increased costs" compared to the normal costs of business.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Liptak, Adam (1 June 2015). "Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court". New York Times. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  2. 1 2 Barnes, Robert (1 June 2015). "Supreme Court allows suit by Muslim woman who says headscarf cost her a job". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  3. "US Supreme Court appears in favour of headscarf claim". BBC News. 25 February 2015. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  4. Glenza, Jessica (2 October 2014). "Supreme court to rule on Abercrombie & Fitch 'religious bias' over hijab". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  5. Gregory, Sean (23 September 2009). "Abercrombie Faces a Muslim-Headscarf Lawsuit". Time. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  6. Hurley, Lawrence (1 June 2015). "U.S. top court backs Muslim woman denied job over head scarf". Reuters. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  7. 1 2 Naylor, Brian (1 June 2015). "Supreme Court Rules For Woman Denied Abercrombie & Fitch Job Over Headscarf". NPR. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  8. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 731F.3d1106 ( 10th Cir. 2013).
  9. EEOC, slip op. at 2 (Alito, S., concurring).
  10. EEOC, slip op. at 5-6 (Thomas, C., dissenting).