Full Answer Section

The hiring practices of companies like Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters have long been subjects of public debate and legal scrutiny, offering stark examples of how strategic workforce planning can go awry when it intersects with discriminatory practices.

Court Cases and Outcomes:

Abercrombie & Fitch:

• Case 1: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015)

  • Background: Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman, applied for a job at an Abercrombie Kids store. She wore a hijab (headscarf) to her interview, which violated the company’s “Look Policy” that prohibited headwear. While the interviewer did not explicitly ask about her religious practice, she assumed the hijab was for religious reasons and did not hire Elauf. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) sued Abercrombie, alleging religious discrimination.
  • Outcome: The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Elauf and the EEOC. The Court held that an employer cannot refuse to hire an applicant based on a religious practice, even if the employer does not have “actual knowledge” of the need for an accommodation, as long as the need for accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings in line with this ruling, and monetary damages were awarded. This decision significantly clarified an employer’s obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act regarding religious accommodations.