This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/01/supreme-court-rules-favor-muslim-woman-hijab-abercrombie-fitch

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Sorry - this page has been removed. Top US court rules for Muslim woman denied Abercrombie job over hijab
(1 day later)
This could be because it launched early, our rights have expired, there was a legal issue, or for another reason. The US supreme court on Monday ruled in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons.
The justices decided the case, which united Christian, Muslim and Jewish and other religious organizations, with an 8-1 vote, ruling in favor of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sued the company on behalf of Elauf.
For further information, please contact: “The EEOC applauds the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in employment decisions,” said EEOC chair Jenny Yang, in a statement.
“This ruling protects the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices.”
In a statement to the Guardian, an Abercrombie & Fitch spokesperson said: “While the supreme court reversed the tenth circuit decision, it did not determine that A&F discriminated against Ms Elauf.
“We will determine our next steps in the litigation, which the supreme court remanded for further consideration.”
In 2008, when she was 17, Elauf was denied a sales job at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa. The legal question before the court was whether Elauf was required to inform the potential employer of a need for a religious accommodation in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.
When attending her job interview, Elauf was wearing a headscarf, or hijab, but did not specifically say that as a Muslim she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation that would allow her to wear it. She was denied the job because her hijab violated the company’s ‘look policy’ in two ways: it was black, and it was considered to be headwear.
During the 25 February hearing of the case, Justice Elena Kagan compared the situation to an employer deciding it did not want to hire Jewish people and then looking out for names that appeared Jewish as a way to screen applicants.
“That’s gotta be against the law, right?” she said.
Related: Abercrombie & Fitch case: justices set to side with Muslim woman over headscarf
Justice Antonin Scalia, who had appeared sympathetic to the store’s argument, wrote the majority opinion.
“An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions,” he wrote. “For example, suppose that an employer thinks (though he does not know for certain) that a job applicant may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath, and thus be unable to work on Saturdays.
“If the applicant actually requires an accommodation of that religious practice, and the employer’s desire to avoid the prospective accommodation is a motivating factor in his decision, the employer violates Title VII.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Abercrombie did not intentionally discriminate. The store remained neutral with regard to religious practices, he wrote, adding: “Elauf received the same treatment from Abercrombie as any other applicant who appeared unable to comply with the company’s look policy.”
He did concede that those who wore headscarves could feel more harshly treated under the look policy.
Muslim groups said in a friend-of-the-court brief that employment discrimination against Muslims was widespread in the US and that the act of a woman wearing a headscarf was often what triggered such discrimination. The EEOC has reported that Muslims file more employment claims about discrimination and the failure to provide religious accommodations than any other religious group.
Groups representing Christians, Jews and Sikhs also filed papers backing Elauf.
Related: Abercrombie & Fitch employees embrace death of sexualised dress code
Abercrombie & Fitch’s statement to the Guardian continued: “A&F remains focused on ensuring the company has an open-minded and tolerant workplace environment for all current and future store associates.
“We have made significant enhancements to our store associate policies, including the replacement of the ‘look policy’ with a new dress code that allows associates to be more individualistic; changed our hiring practices to not consider attractiveness; and changed store associates’ titles from ‘model’ to ‘brand representative’ to align with their new customer focus.
“This case relates to events occurring in 2008. A&F has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion, and consistent with the law, has granted numerous religious accommodations when requested, including hijabs.”
Many of those changes have been implemented following the departure of Michael Jeffries, who has been the company’s chief executive since 1992. Jeffries left in December after shares fell about 39% over 12 months.
In April, the company announced that “by the end of July, there will no longer be sexualized marketing used in marketing materials, including in-store photos, gift cards and shopping bags”.
Reuters contributed to this report.