Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie & Fitch In Discrimination Case

[rug]

Posted: 06/01/2015 10:44 am EDT
Updated: 26 minutes ago
Dave Jamieson

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday that retailer Abercrombie & Fitch may have violated workplace discrimination law when it turned down a Muslim job applicant because she wore a hijab, even though her religious beliefs never came up in the interview.

Samantha Elauf, the job seeker at the center of the case, applied for a sales position at an Abercrombie children's store in Oklahoma in 2008. Despite her high marks in the interview, Elauf didn't land the job because her headscarf ran afoul of Abercrombie's employee "look policy," which bars hats and promotes the retailer's preppy brand. Elauf sued with the help of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Civil rights law requires that employers accommodate workers' religious beliefs in the workplace, and forbids them from firing or not hiring someone because of those beliefs. But Abercrombie argued that it couldn't have known to make such an accommodation because Elauf, who was 17 at the time, never requested one.

The majority of justices didn't buy that argument, reversing an earlier appeals ruling in Abercrombie's favor. They said that whether or not Abercrombie had firm knowledge of Elauf's need for an accommodation was not relevant -- only that her headscarf was a "motivating factor" in their decision not to hire her. (In Elauf's case, an Abercrombie manager had correctly assumed that Elauf was Muslim, and that she would regularly wear the hijab on the job.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/supreme-court-abercrombie_n_7464534.html

The decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf

[Yorktown]

1. Hopefully, these laws will be changed

Civil rights law requires that employers accommodate workers' religious beliefs in the workplace

The workplace shouldn't be a place where religious beliefs are advertised.

Besides, some imams have ruled that 'islamic' gear is not compulsory in non muslim countries.

Muslims insisting on such garb are force their world view when they could accept secular rules.

It's worth trying to stop them at every corner.

[rug]

2. That's fascism.

What other expression would you liker to outlaw?

[Yorktown]

3. Any organized group which tries to kill freedoms.

If millions start marching in blck/white and brown uniforms shouting Sieg Heil, stop them
If millions start preaching that unbelievers must be subjugated, stop them

If some feel good enabling them to look good and antifascistic, refer to Lenin's definition.

PS; you carefully omitted to take note that imams expressed religious fatwas indicating the wearing of traditional garb (seen in certain, but not all, muslim majority countries as a means to express the belonging to the islamic faith) was NOT compulsory in non muslim majority countries.

People insisting on these clothings advertising to the world their religious affiliation have therefore NO theological ground. Why you would support their unsubstantiated claim is a mystery.

[rug]

10. I presume you would prganize to outlaw expression of ideas in the workplace.

[Cartoonist]

4. Open carry

I am opposed to the open carry of guns. Here in America, gun worship is a religion.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. As long as they can perform the tasks set forth, and it doesn't violate safety codes,

or health rules. Then reasonable accommodations can be made.

[Yorktown]

7. Not when their garb is a political statement of a radical view of their religion

If moderate imams say traditional garb isn't necessary to be compliant to their religion,

the wearing of such garbs is an affirmation of the power to strut in militant uniform.

Then the weak will be pushed around. 1932, anyone?

[pinto]

40. You're equating a young woman wearing a hijab to wearing a Nazi military uniform?

Or is this hyperbole used towards a point for discussion?

[Yorktown]

41. The hijab is a militant uniform

It is a way of proclaiming one's adherence to the doctrine of the Quran.
And the Quran contains quite a few passages which can be taken as inciting to violence.

So wearing a hijab while not being the strict equivalent to wearing a Nazi military uniform
does pose real questions about what the hijab wearer thinks of democracy and free speech.

Now I know many nice women who wear the hijab out of misplaced 'spirituality'.
In the same way many Germans wore Hitlerjunge uniforms without being haters.

I would also equate someone wearing an Inquisition uniform to wearing a Nazi military uniform.
God is not great.

[pinto]

42. I've no clue as to what the woman thinks about democracy and free speech.

Perhaps the hijab was a statement supporting free speech in a democratic society? Not a symbol of hate or violence. In any event, absent a statement I don't think any of us can presume to ascribe intent.

SCOTUS ruled on the Constitutional facts of the case. I'm fine with that and support it.

[Yorktown]

44. I have a clue that someone who wants to impose the hijab in the workplace is a militant

And I have a clue about what that woman thinks about democracy and free speech.

She thinks these values come after god. And I wish that militantism to be curbed.

Her fight to impose religious garb the religion does not mandate is an assault on secularism.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. If that's the case, it cannot be considered a religious duty to wear it.

The first amendment is cool and all, but I don't think it qualifies as a religion unto itself.

[pinto]

47. SCOTUS didn't rule on religious duty. They ruled on the prior notification issue. A narrow ruling.

But a clear majority conclusion. One role of the SCOTUS I appreciate is its historical hedge on "slippery slope" rulings.

There've been some glaring exceptions recently, some I hope to see revisited.

[MellowDem]

9. Should they be required?

Just for the religious? What if someone wanted to wear a baseball cap? Why should whether his motivation was religious or not determine whether an accommodation must be made?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Problematic test case.

A&F is selling a style. An appearance. They have no head coverings of this nature in their portfolio. That being the case, I think the court should have ruled in their favor, since it is brand practice to enforce the usage of the product as part of employment in customer-facing positions. Essentially, the sales positions are being used as mannequins.

If that were not the case, if employees could wear whatever, then the lawsuit would make sense.
If the position she applied for was not customer facing, again, the lawsuit would make sense.

Position is customer facing and position requires wearing brand identity/style. So the lawsuit makes no sense.

The company has three options to avoid the suit though, since the court is stupid; add head coverings of this nature to the brand portfolio in a form that is compatible with the portfolio, drop the requirement for employees in customer facing positions to wear brand identity, or lastly, hire her for a non-customer-facing position.

This is not materially different from a company that sold hair care products that required employees to use the product as an example of the style the company is selling, and having a prospective employee that wanted to wear a similar head covering.

Makes no sense.

[pinto]

39. Maybe A&F could have seen this as an opportunity to expand their brand recognition, culturally.

Just a passing thought, aside from the structure of the Supreme Court ruling.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Essentially the first of the three lawsuit avoidance options I listed.

Maybe sounds better the way you said it though.

[pinto]

46. Got that after I posted. The same point, just different wording.

I was playing A&F marketing consultant.

[MellowDem]

8. Another victory for religious privilege...

As the Court interpreted it, religion gets "favored status" over secular motivations. That is the heart of the problem, and until that is addressed in legislation or the Court, we have institutionalized privilege for religion over secularism.

Perhaps when enough silly shit is shown to be done to "favor" religion, they'll change it, but I think this is the intention, we already see with Hobby Lobby that religion gets to ride roughshod over other's rights, now it gets even more favored status over secularism than before.

And for what reason? Why should religion get such favored status over secularism?

[Jim__]

11. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent.

What a surprise!

[rug]

13. He was torn between competing hates.

[cbayer]

12. Good call. Civil rights law protect religious beliefs in so far as they can accommodate them.

I know that galls the shit out of some people, but that's the law.

[MellowDem]

14. The law is wrong...

to provide the religious special power and privileges it doesn't offer to the non-religious.

A person shouldn't get special privilege to wear a hat just because their motivation is religious and not secular. That is, there is no good reason to give religion a preference.

The reason the law has in the past is because the vast majority of people were religious. That's a terrible reason to favor religion over non-religion. What's the reason for continuing to?

[cbayer]

15. The civil rights law is wrong? Who else should we remove protections for?

Be careful what you wish for. Removing protections for believers could also remove protections for nonbelievers.

The civil rights law covers the non-religious. You know that right?

The law is also a spin off from the 1st amendment. Do you think we should repeal that?

Again, be very careful, because eliminating freedom of religion could easily lead to eliminating freedom from religion…

and I don't think you'd like that one little bit.

[MellowDem]

16. You don't get it....

There ARE no "protections" for non-believers that allows them to sue an employer who doesn't hire them because they want to wear a hat and the employer has a no hats policy.

This sort of privilege written into our law is what makes things like Hobby Lobby possible, this is what this decision is in line with.

Religious believers should get protections for their beliefs, as atheists do for non-belief, but why should they get extra protection for any religious practices that secular practices do not get? There is no reason.

[cbayer]

17. Yes, I get it. The civil rights laws protect believers just like non-believers.

Discrimination based on religious belief is prohibited. If the employer said that everyone had to wear a cross, you would be covered by this law in refusing to do so.

This isn't about hobby lobby. This is about an individual whose religious clothing could have been easy accommodated and who was denied employment based on her religious clothing. A/F has already said they could have accommodated her and would have accommodated her if they had known, which is the really lame argument that the SCOTUS dismissed from their court.

There is no extra protection here. This is just the law in action. Non-believers bring and win these kinds of suits all the time.

And, once again, I must point out the obvious. If you think this muslim girl with a headscarf has more privilege than you, it is your that really doesn't get it.

[MellowDem]

18. How could a non-believer...

sue to wear a hat under this law on the exact same situation? They couldn't! THAT'S the issue.

You really don't understand privilege, t operates in many ways and in many situations. In THIS situation, believes are privileged over non-believers.

Read the decision, it SAYS that religion is given favored treatment. Right in the decision! It says religious practices must be treated more favorably than secular practices, right in the decision!

[cbayer]

19. If you insist on making the situations identical, that would make no sense at all.

I gave you a good example of an employer insisting that a potential employee do or wear something religious.

I understand privilege very well, and honestly I think the higher up on the ladder you are, the more blinded you are to it, which may be why you can't see why a woman in a religious headdress much less privilege than a woman without one.

In this particular case, the believer got screwed and the courts fixed it.

Yes, the civil rights acts gives favored treatment to religious practices as compared to other practices. That's the whole point of it.

If someone just wants to wear a goofy hat to be silly, the store can say no. If a woman wants to wear a headdress because it is an important part of her religious beliefs, they have to accommodate her if possible.

I know you don't like that, but that's the law and it's there to prevent discrimination based on religion. Are there other things covered by Title VII that you think we should reverse?

[MellowDem]

20. That part of the law doesn't prevent discrimination...

It provides special favor to religious practices! Read the bottom of page 6 of the decision.

Now, seriously, why should a person who wants to wear a silly hat have less ability to do so under the law than someone who wants to wear it for religious purposes? What's the reason? I haven't seen one articulated.

[cbayer]

21. You are mounting an argument against Title VII of the Civil Rights Law of 1964.

You essentially would like to see religion removed as a protected category and see no need to provide it with protections.

There are places where they have actually done that and it really hasn't worked out all that well.

There are people out there that would like to see other categories removed as well and they would also say they can't see any reason why those people should have special protections.

You are no different than the ones that make arguments for removing the protections for race, color, religion, sex or national origin. You may feel that your position is somehow more justified, but it's not. Discrimination is a-ok with you as long as it is practiced on a group you don't like.

[MellowDem]

22. No...

I want the section removed that says religious practices should be favored over non-religious practices.

If you can't go two seconds without creating a straw man, then you're not very honest.

[cbayer]

23. I can go my entire life without creating a straw man and I am very honest.

Nice talking to you and good luck with amending The Civil Rights Acts. I hoe no one else gets in there while you are tinkering around and removes other protections that you might actually be in favor of.

[MellowDem]

25. You're incredibly dishonest...

You just said I wanted to remove all protections from religion with absolutely nothing to show that, you didn't address any point I made on the topic of the OP, and you implied even worse about me. So, you lied, you made it personal, and you ignored the topic. Par for the course bullying behavior.

I think it makes sense to modify a law that says religious practices must be favored over non-religious practices, because it's discriminatory and a violation of the First Amendment IMHO. It should be done while keeping all other protections in place.

I think this provision of the law is in keeping with other laws that give religion special privileges over others.

[cbayer]

26. No, I'm not incredibly dishonest. You just don't like my opinion.

But you've resorted to an ad hom and that's the end of the discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

31. You just called MellowDem a bigot and you're complaining about ad homs?

You are no different than the ones that make arguments for removing the protections for race, color, religion, sex or national origin. You may feel that your position is somehow more justified, but it's not. Discrimination is a-ok with you as long as it is practiced on a group you don't like.

MellowDem repeatedly explained their position in words any intelligent person could understand and you deliberately misrepresented what they were saying so you could accuse them of being a bigot.

Not only are you one of the most dishonest posters I've ever seen, your hypocrisy is staggering.

Enough is enough, cbayer, lying about people isn't a game. Just stop it.

[MellowDem]

32. You never addressed any points...

You never had a discussion.

[Heddi]

30. You *can*, you just choose not to, right?

this is, perhaps, the funniest thing I've read in this forum since hearing your husband say he was a supporter of gay rights just as he equated same-sex marriage with a man marrying a bicycle, a vole, and a dead grandmother.

I want whatever the fuck you two are smoking.

No...nevermind...I don't want any of that at all

[Lordquinton]

34. you say you never make a strawman

In your subject line, then you construct one in the body of the very same post.

Amazing. I'm blessed to have witnessed such skill.

[edhopper]

24. I don't have an opinion on this case

Last edited Mon Jun 1, 2015, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

but it pains me that it is still legal to fire or not higher someone based on sexual orientation.

[cbayer]

27. Pains me too, and hopefully we see that end in our lifetime.

(Psst, it's not a preference - if I had said that all hell would've broken loose, like it did when I said democrat party TWICE in one post. Good thing your are not me).

[edhopper]

29. You're right

old language, I'll change it to orientation.

thanks

[underpants]

28. Personally I thought Fitch would win this one

F#^k Ambercrombie

[Yorktown]

33. Reza Aslan's texts show the SCOTUS ruling was wrong

At the time of muhamad, muslim women were not veiled.He only required that of his wives.

In muslim Turkey, women were required NOT to wear veils or scarves at Universities.
In modern Europe, imams ruled the scarf was NOT a religious duty.

But in a fashion shop in the US, SCOTUS decides the scarf can be a religious duty?

Accomodation of religion gone mad.

[Jim__]

35. The Supreme Court did not rule on the facts of the case.

It ruled on the interpretation of Title VII and remanded the case:

Respondent (Abercrombie) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospect ive employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The EEOC prevailed in the District Court, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, awarding Abercrombie summary judgment on the ground that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.

Held : To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision requires Elauf to show that Abercrombie (1) “fail<ed> . . . to hire” her (2) “because of ” (3) “<her> religion” (including a religious practice). 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). And its “because of” standard is understood to mean that the protected characteristic cannot be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision. §2000e–2(m). Thus, rather than imposing a knowledge standard, §2000e–2(a)(1) prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’ s knowledge: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Title VII contains no knowledge requirement. Furthermore, Title VII’s definition of religion clearly indicates that failure-to-accommodate challenges can be brought as disparate-treatment claims. And Title VII gives favored treatment to religious practices, rather than dmanding that religious practices be treated no worse than other practices. Pp. 2–7. 731 F. 3d 1106, reversed and remanded.

If Reza Aslan has ever spoken on the correct interpretation of Title VII, the Supreme Court probably would not accept his opinion as authoritative.

[Yorktown]

36. The SCOTUS is still wrong (based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Wearing a veil is NOT a religious obligation. It can't be theologically supported.

(notably based on Azlan's notes, and the others I mentioned)

The following

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospect ive employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship.

does not apply as it cannot be proven wearing a veil is a religious command.

Wearing a veil is a choice made by many muslim women, not a religious obligation.

There is therefore no violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Jim__]

37. Do you know what remanded means?

They didn't decide the case. They answered the question that was presented to them:

The question presented is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.

The Tenth Circuit ruled based on its interpretation of Title VII:

... the Tenth Circuit reversed, awarding Abercrombie summary judgment on the ground that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.

The Supreme Court ruled that that is not the correct interpretation. They made that ruling and remanded the case.

As an aside, Abercrombie could have made the argument that you're asserting. I'm betting that they didn't. I'm also betting that they didn't miss that argument due to any oversight on the part of their lawyers.

[Yorktown]

38. I was actually answering to the way the article reported the SCOTUS decision

You are right, the SCOTUS was right to remand the case as A&F's argument was irrecevable.

The sentence I was actually reacting to was:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday that retailer Abercrombie & Fitch may have violated workplace discrimination law when it turned down a Muslim job applicant because she wore a hijab, even though her religious beliefs never came up in the interview.

As I wrote earlier, it could have been discrimination if wearing a veil was a religious dictum.

As for your sentence

As an aside, Abercrombie could have made the argument that you're asserting. I'm betting that they didn't. I'm also betting that they didn't miss that argument due to any oversight on the part of their lawyers.

I suspect the A&F's lawyers didn't want to follow that route to avoid collateral bad publicity among young trendsetters by confronting a minority religion.

Or because they do not want to confront any religious issue at all, religions being granted far too much respect in today's America ever since the moral-majority/born-again marketing blitz.

[okasha]

48. A hijab is not a veil.

[Yorktown]

49. The word Hijab comes from the word for veil (source: BBC)

But 'headscarf' probably would be a better word. Thanks for the precision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm

[okasha]

50. "Scarf" seems sufficient.

[Yorktown]

51. Hijab is routinely translated as veil

Hijab
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Hijab (hee-jab), also spelled ḥijāb (/hɪˈdʒɑːb/, /hɪˈdʒæb/, /ˈhɪ.dʒæb/ or /hɛˈdʒɑːb/;[1][2][3][4] Arabic: حجاب?, pronounced [ħiˈdʒæːb] or [ħiˈɡæːb]), is a veil that covers the head and chest, which is often worn by Muslim women beyond the age of puberty in the presence of adult males outside of their immediate family as a form of modest attire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab