NQ1965
PR Elite
Kind of a twist on this, The Supreme Court recently had to process a case of an individual "supposedly descriminated against" for a job, due to her religious lifestyle:
My thinking on it when I heard the story was that she must not of needed the job that bad. If I really needed a job, I'm not gonna let something such as a head scarf keeep me from getting a good paycheck. The decision review basically came down to does an employer have the right "not to select" an employment candidate because they don't fit the image needed for the business?
The Case
In 2008, 17-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a job at an Abercrombie Kids store at the Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She interviewed for a position — what Abercrombie & Fitch calls a “model” — on the sales floor. Elauf, a Muslim woman, wore a hijab to her interview. At the time, wearing a hijab in that position would have violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy.” The policy was meant to showcase Abercrombie’s brand, which “exemplifies a classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing,” according to court documents. As a result, Elauf was given a poor score — 1 out of 3 — on the “appearance” section of her interview assessment and was not hired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency charged with enforcing employment discrimination laws, sued on Elauf’s behalf. The EEOC argued that Abercrombie had violated discrimination laws by failing to provide Elauf with religious accommodation.
In October, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the company. Judge Jerome Holmes wrote in his opinion that even though she wore it to her interview, “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her headscarf or ‘hijab’ for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice.”
So the question now before the Supreme Court is one of information and explication: Is an employer liable only if it received an explicit notice from an applicant or employee about a required religious accommodation? Or is explicit notice unnecessary?
My thinking on it when I heard the story was that she must not of needed the job that bad. If I really needed a job, I'm not gonna let something such as a head scarf keeep me from getting a good paycheck. The decision review basically came down to does an employer have the right "not to select" an employment candidate because they don't fit the image needed for the business?
The Case
In 2008, 17-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a job at an Abercrombie Kids store at the Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She interviewed for a position — what Abercrombie & Fitch calls a “model” — on the sales floor. Elauf, a Muslim woman, wore a hijab to her interview. At the time, wearing a hijab in that position would have violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy.” The policy was meant to showcase Abercrombie’s brand, which “exemplifies a classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing,” according to court documents. As a result, Elauf was given a poor score — 1 out of 3 — on the “appearance” section of her interview assessment and was not hired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency charged with enforcing employment discrimination laws, sued on Elauf’s behalf. The EEOC argued that Abercrombie had violated discrimination laws by failing to provide Elauf with religious accommodation.
In October, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the company. Judge Jerome Holmes wrote in his opinion that even though she wore it to her interview, “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her headscarf or ‘hijab’ for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice.”
So the question now before the Supreme Court is one of information and explication: Is an employer liable only if it received an explicit notice from an applicant or employee about a required religious accommodation? Or is explicit notice unnecessary?
