Abercrombie Case Study
Summary
In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie. Abercrombie has a look policy that states that employees cannot wear any caps or headdresses of any kind. Ms. Elauf is a practicing Muslim and she believes it is necessary to wear a hijab (headscarf) everyday due to her religious beliefs. At the interview and prior to the interview, Heather Cooke had noticed Ms. Elauf wearing a headscarf. From the headscarf, Ms. Cooke assumed that Ms. Elauf was a practicing Muslim. Ms. Cooke approved Ms. Elauf for the job based upon the qualifications that Abercrombie was looking for, but she did not know if an exception would be made to the look policy. After the situation went up the chain of command, Abercrombie chose not to hire Ms. Elauf due to the fact that she was obviously a practicing Muslim and she believed that wearing the headscarf was necessary. Later, Ms. Elauf was informed she was not hired due to the headscarf. This action was said to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC sued Abercrombie on behalf of Ms. Elauf. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, …show more content…
the results were 8-1 in favor of the EEOC and Ms. Elauf. Abercrombie tried to use the defense that since Ms. Elauf never told them she would need to wear the headscarf, they did not know about her religion; that defense did not stand up. The court argued that the presence of the headscarf inferred the religious practice. Justice Clarence Thomas was the one Justice to vote against the EEOC. He argued that the application, interview process, and policies were equal to all applicants. Choosing to allow an accommodation for only Ms. Elauf would be unfair treatment. Therefore, he argued that Ms. Elauf did not suffer from unequal treatment due to her religious practice and attire. Although Justice Thomas brought a different perspective, the other Justices did not agree and thus reversed the judgement of the Tenth Circuit court, ruling in favor of the EEOC and Ms. Elauf.
Implications
This was surely a hard decision, seeing as Ms.
Elauf was qualified for the position in all ways other than her headscarf. In this case, HR did what they thought was right. However, the choice did not work out in favor of Abercrombie. In the future, HR should be clearer about their policies so people who cannot meet their policies will not apply for the job. They should also have a plan in place for future situations like this one. HR should make sure that managers and interviewers for Abercrombie are aware of the policies and what is and is not acceptable. They should make decisions regarding what religious practices they can work with (prayer times, Sabbath observance, and religious attire) without causing what they consider to be "undue hardship." HR could also change their look policy to state what religious attire they can accommodate and the ones they cannot
accommodate.
In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie. Abercrombie has a look policy that states that employees cannot wear any caps or headdresses of any kind. Ms. Elauf is a practicing Muslim and she believes it is necessary to wear a hijab (headscarf) everyday due to her religious beliefs. At the interview and prior to the interview, Heather Cooke had noticed Ms. Elauf wearing a headscarf. From the headscarf, Ms. Cooke assumed that Ms. Elauf was a practicing Muslim. Ms. Cooke approved Ms. Elauf for the job based upon the qualifications that Abercrombie was looking for, but she did not know if an exception would be made to the look policy. After the situation went up the chain of command, Abercrombie chose not to hire Ms. Elauf due to the fact that she was obviously a practicing Muslim and she believed that wearing the headscarf was necessary. Later, Ms. Elauf was informed she was not hired due to the headscarf. This action was said to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC sued Abercrombie on behalf of Ms. Elauf. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, …show more content…
the results were 8-1 in favor of the EEOC and Ms. Elauf. Abercrombie tried to use the defense that since Ms. Elauf never told them she would need to wear the headscarf, they did not know about her religion; that defense did not stand up. The court argued that the presence of the headscarf inferred the religious practice. Justice Clarence Thomas was the one Justice to vote against the EEOC. He argued that the application, interview process, and policies were equal to all applicants. Choosing to allow an accommodation for only Ms. Elauf would be unfair treatment. Therefore, he argued that Ms. Elauf did not suffer from unequal treatment due to her religious practice and attire. Although Justice Thomas brought a different perspective, the other Justices did not agree and thus reversed the judgement of the Tenth Circuit court, ruling in favor of the EEOC and Ms. Elauf.
Implications
This was surely a hard decision, seeing as Ms.
Elauf was qualified for the position in all ways other than her headscarf. In this case, HR did what they thought was right. However, the choice did not work out in favor of Abercrombie. In the future, HR should be clearer about their policies so people who cannot meet their policies will not apply for the job. They should also have a plan in place for future situations like this one. HR should make sure that managers and interviewers for Abercrombie are aware of the policies and what is and is not acceptable. They should make decisions regarding what religious practices they can work with (prayer times, Sabbath observance, and religious attire) without causing what they consider to be "undue hardship." HR could also change their look policy to state what religious attire they can accommodate and the ones they cannot
accommodate.