Headscarf Case Study Religion
Q-1 Who are the parties involved and what are their goals?
Samantha Elauf, a 17 year old job applicant; Heather Cooke, Assistant Manager, and Abercrombie & Fitch. Samantha’s goal was initially to get a job, when it did not happen she felt obligated to seek legal action. Heather Cooke’s goal was simply to hire and employee, however that was complicated when she talked to her district manager and made an assumption in regards to Elauf’s reason for her headscarf. That assumption led the district manager to identify the violation of the “Look Policy”. Abercrombie & Fitch’s goal is simply to ensure their identity is not weakened or devalued by the “Look” of their employees.
Q-2 How does this show or disprove the themes found in Religion …show more content…
This spiritual actions of wearing a headscarf has clearly been an issue with obtaining a job at Abercrombie & Fitch
In this case Samantha is also an outsider looking in at the culture at Abercrombie & Fitch.
Heather Cooke would likely have hired Samantha has she not consulted with her district manager regarding the assumption of the headscarf. That action was leads one to believe that the district manager wanted to keep Samantha on the outside based on an assumption.
From the Abercrombie & Fitch perspective they stated that they should not be liable because Samantha never requested accommodations for her religious beliefs, however the job was not granted because of an assumption of religious beliefs.
Q-3 What case or cases in That Godless Court? have an impact on the situation?
The sherbert v. Verner case brought the “Sherbert test” as a way to clearly determine if the “Free Exercise Clause” has been violated. o The answer to this question 1 is yes. The answer to question 2 is no, there is no compelling interest that would justify burdening religious freedom. The answer to question 3 is not clearly answered in this
Samantha Elauf, a 17 year old job applicant; Heather Cooke, Assistant Manager, and Abercrombie & Fitch. Samantha’s goal was initially to get a job, when it did not happen she felt obligated to seek legal action. Heather Cooke’s goal was simply to hire and employee, however that was complicated when she talked to her district manager and made an assumption in regards to Elauf’s reason for her headscarf. That assumption led the district manager to identify the violation of the “Look Policy”. Abercrombie & Fitch’s goal is simply to ensure their identity is not weakened or devalued by the “Look” of their employees.
Q-2 How does this show or disprove the themes found in Religion …show more content…
This spiritual actions of wearing a headscarf has clearly been an issue with obtaining a job at Abercrombie & Fitch
In this case Samantha is also an outsider looking in at the culture at Abercrombie & Fitch.
Heather Cooke would likely have hired Samantha has she not consulted with her district manager regarding the assumption of the headscarf. That action was leads one to believe that the district manager wanted to keep Samantha on the outside based on an assumption.
From the Abercrombie & Fitch perspective they stated that they should not be liable because Samantha never requested accommodations for her religious beliefs, however the job was not granted because of an assumption of religious beliefs.
Q-3 What case or cases in That Godless Court? have an impact on the situation?
The sherbert v. Verner case brought the “Sherbert test” as a way to clearly determine if the “Free Exercise Clause” has been violated. o The answer to this question 1 is yes. The answer to question 2 is no, there is no compelling interest that would justify burdening religious freedom. The answer to question 3 is not clearly answered in this