WUNRN
Also Via Human Rights Without Frontiers
USA – Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Woman Denied Abercrombie Job over Hijab
US Supreme Court votes 8-1 in
favor of Samantha Elauf, but company tells the Guardian the ruling ‘did not
determine that A&F discriminated against Ms Elauf’
Samantha
Elauf, who was denied a sales job in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. Photograph: AP
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.
“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 got to be against the law, right?” she
said.
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.
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.