Blog Post

Supreme Court rules in Abercrombie dress-code case

June 1, 2015 | by NCC Staff

A near unanimous Supreme Court said on Monday that a lower court didn’t properly interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in a dispute between Abercrombie & Fitch and a headscarf-wearing Muslim job applicant who was denied employment at an apparel store.

 

US_Supreme_Court_Building-640Link: Read The Decision

 

Justice Antonin Scalia said in an 8-1 majority opinion that “an employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no-headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent ‘fail[ure] . . . to hire’ was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”

 

The Tenth Circuit Appeals Court had ruled for Abercrombie in the case, so today’s Supreme Court decision overturned that ruling and remanded the case back to the Tenth Circuit.

 

The case of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. arose after Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, was denied employment at one of Abercrombie’s stores based on her inability to adhere to the company’s “Look Policy.”

 

Per Abercrombie policy, all store employees must wear clothing that is reminiscent of the company’s style, in an effort to bolster the store’s brand. This policy also includes a ban on “caps,” although this term is not clearly defined within the Look Policy, and all black clothing.

 

After applying for a sales position with Abercrombie, Elauf arrived at her interview wearing a black headscarf. Elauf has worn such a headscarf for many years as part of her religious practice. The assistant manager who interviewed Elauf did not ask about the headscarf but did later admit that she assumed it was related to Elauf’s Muslim faith. After consulting with the store’s district manager and determining the headscarf violated the Look Policy, the assistant manager recommended that Elauf not be hired based on her score in the interview’s “appearance & sense of style” category.

 

The EEOC then brought this case against Abercrombie for religious discrimination, claiming that Abercrombie failed to accommodate Elauf’s religious practices in violation of Title VII.

 

The Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the EEOC, reasoning that it is an employee’s responsibility to notify a potential employer of the need for a religious accommodation. Such notification must be direct, so as to give an employer actual knowledge of the necessary accommodation.

 

Because Elauf did not give Abercrombie any indication that her headscarf was required for religious purposes, the Tenth Circuit found that Abercrombie’s behavior did not violate Title VII.

 

On Monday, Scalia said Abercrombie was asking the Supreme Court to expand on the Civil Rights Act.

 

“Abercrombie urges this Court to adopt the Tenth Circuit’s rule ‘allocat[ing] the burden of raising a religious conflict,’” Scalia said. “This would require the employer to have actual knowledge of a conflict between an applicant’s religious practice and a work rule. The problem with this approach is the one that inheres in most incorrect interpretations of statutes: It asks us to add words to the law to produce what is thought to be a desirable result. That is Congress’s province.”


 
More from the National Constitution Center
Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Media Library

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Constitution Daily Blog