Name 1

Name

Teacher

Class, 11th grade

December 5th, 2016

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

The United States of America has been the synonym for freedom and acceptance

since its independence; becoming an example of respect and tolerance to all the other

nations of the world. The first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States,

known as the Bill of Rights, offers a set of rules that protect the individual from

discrimination, encouraging liberty of each citizen. As stated in the Title VII of the Civil

Rights It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to

hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with

respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of

such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (1964). This Title protects the

individual who is seeking a job, stating that no one could deny one because of personal

reason such as religion beliefs.

The case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch

Stores was a case in the United States that involved a Muslim teenager, called Samantha

Elauf, and the American retailer Abercrombie & Fitch. (Barnes, 2015). Samantha Elauf was
 Name 2

a 17-year-old girl who, as a Muslim female adult, decided to wear a hijab, or headscarf, a

symbol of modesty and privacy among women of this religion. (Martin, 2004). Elauf

decided to apply for a job at a store of Abercrombie & Fitch in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where the

job was denied due to the headscarf that she wore during the interview. According to the

manager of the store, they decided to do not hire Elauf because the employees were not

allowed to wear hats at work. (Glenza, 2004). This specific case shows the current

unbalance between the rights of an individual that comes from a minority and the needs of

the society as a whole. The case of Samantha shows the closed-minded society in which we

live in, where we are not able to accept others that believe and behave differently than we

do. It is not fair in any sense that Abercrombie & Fitch denied to hire Elauf under the

conditions that they did. The expression of the individuals religion beliefs, ideologies or

national origins is important to enhance the need of globalization in the society and the

country, in the same way, the expression of a religious point of view should be a right to

followers of all religions not a privilege of some them. I completely agree with the

majority ruling of this case, where the Supreme Court ruled 81 in favor of Elauf because

the court has defended Samanthas right of expressing her religion and culture by wearing a

hijab (Liptack, 2015). This topic exemplifies how the vast part of America works, trying to

defend the rights of the majority, and leaving asides the minor groups. However, the

outcome of this case is a small step towards the mutual respect, tolerance and a more open-

minded society, where everyone has the free will of expressing their own ideas.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

began in the year of 2008 when Elauf decided to look for a job in Abercrombie & Fitch

Store in Oklahoma. In 2009, the first demand appeared on behalf of the Equal Employment
 Name 3

Opportunity Commission that represented Elauf on the court versus Abercrombie & Fitch

Stores. Later, in 2015, the case was taken to the Supreme Court in Washington DC, where

the final decision was taken. This case in particular shows the reaction of Christians

towards any muslin person, especially women. Even though the Islam is the third largest

religion in the United States (Wormald, 2015), there has always been stereotypes against it

thanks to various terrorist attacks that had Muslims involved in, this created Islamophobia

An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by

negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion

of Muslims from social, political, and civic life (Gallup, 2016). This case was the response

to all the actions that were incentivized by the phobia against Islam and the expression of

this religion, ending up as a controversial case because it was one of the first ones that

protected a minority in the labor market in the United States.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

case had two different parts, the first one that began in 2009, the year after the

discriminatory events, and in 2015 when the case was taken to the Supreme Court. In the

first stage, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the firm, which lead to a

federal district court, which had a resolution in which benefited Samantha with 20 000

dollars as a damage repair. (Hurley, 2015). However, this decision was reversed by the 10th

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Abercrombie & Fitch won the case, stating that Elauf

did not mentioned that she needed a special accommodation because of her religious

believes. (Naylor, 2015). Later on, this case was taken to the Supreme Court, where the

decision ruled 8-1 in favor of Elauf. Justice Scalia stated Cooke informed Johnson that

she believed Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith. Johnson told Cooke that Elaufs
 Name 4

headscarf would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or

otherwise, and directed Cooke not to hire Elauf., where the manager of the store decided to

do not hire Elauf because of the hijab that she wore for religious reasons, not for style.

Since Islam is a minority group in the United States, the Justice decided to give an example

of a more popular religious group, the Jews. 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. In this example,

we can see that an orthodox Jew will obtain special accommodation because of his religion,

as it also happens with educational purposes such as the arrangement of SAT test dates.

This example emphaticizes the fact that only some religious groups will obtain special

accommodation when others, such as Muslims, since there is a huge stigma of the Islam.

Justice Alito stated she [Elauf] was rejected because her scarf violated

Abercrombies dress code for employees. There is sufficient evidence in the summary

judgment record to support a finding that Abercrombies decision makers knew that Elauf

was a Muslim and that she wore the headscarf for a religious reason. In this quote we can

see that there was evidence in order to prove that Elauf was a Muslim women who has

decided to wear a hijab in order to demonstrate her faith, yet Abercrombie & Fitch decided

not to hire her because of her religious expression, even though Title VII states otherwise.

In the same way in which Justice Scalia used Jews as an example of the reinforcement of

the Title VII suppose, for example, that an employer rejected all applicants who refuse to

work on Saturday, whether for religious or nonreligious reasons. Applicants whose refusal

to work on Saturday was known by the employer to be based on religion will have been

rejected because of a religious practice. Again, we can see that if there is a situation in
 Name 5

which an employer regrets to hire someone that cannot work on Saturdays because of his

religious believes; this circumstances will end up as a discriminatory case in the court,

where most likely the firm will lose because of the Title VII. However, in many cases, the

enforcement of this law only happens with majority groups, not the minority. In sum, the

EEOC was required in this case to prove that Abercrombie rejected Elauf because of a

practice that Abercrombie knew was religious.

As it was stated throughout the essay, this specific case is a small step towards the

overall respect and tolerance towards all the groups in the United States of American,

including groups with different religions, ideologies, believes, races and origins, where the

minority groups are totally included as well. The significance of this case is the actions that

go totally against of the present actions that are happening in the United States in this

moment, where the Islamophobia caused by the Presidential Elections, especially by the

president elected, Donald Trump. This case is the first phase towards the equal employment

of all the citizens within the nation, where everyone has the same opportunities of obtaining

a job regardless of their identity. This will not only affect the individual, but also the society

and the economy as a whole. The society because there will be a greater acceptance

towards all the groups, but also in the economy because the unemployment rates will

decrease thanks to the inclusive society in which we will live in.

Works Cited:
 Name 6

42 U.S. Code 2000e2 - Unlawful employment practices. (n.d.). Retrieved December 03,

2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2

Barnes, R. (2015, June 1). National Supreme Court allows suit by Muslim woman who says

headscarf cost her a job. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-allows-suit-by-muslim-woman-

who-says-head-scarf-cost-her-a-job/2015/06/01/977293f0-088c-11e5-9e39-

0db921c47b93_story.html?utm_term=.39ee70bcab0d.

Martin, R. C. (2004). Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world. New York: Macmillan

Reference USA.

Glenza, J. (2014, October 02). Supreme Court to rule on Abercrombie & Fitch 'religious

bias' over hijab. Retrieved December 03, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-

news/2014/oct/02/supreme-court-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-religious-bias-muslim-headscarf

Liptak, A. (2015). Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court.

Retrieved December 04, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-

court-rules-in-samantha-elauf-abercrombie-fitch-case.html

Wormald, B. (2015). Religious Landscape Study. Retrieved December 04, 2016, from

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Supreme Court Rules For Woman Denied Abercrombie & Fitch Job Over Headscarf. (n.d.).

Retrieved December 04, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-

way/2015/06/01/411213623/supreme-court-rules-for-woman-denied-abercrombie-fitch-job-

over-headscarf
 Name 7

Gallup, I. (2016). Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the West.

Retrieved December 04, 2016, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-

understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx

U.S. top court backs Muslim woman denied job over head scarf. (2015). Retrieved

December 04, 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-scarf-

idUSKBN0OH2NW20150601