EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: Title VII and Religious Discrimination
This paper examines EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case involving a Muslim applicant, Samantha Elauf, who wore a hijab to a job interview and was denied employment under the company's "look policy." The paper traces the legal journey from the circuit court's ruling in Abercrombie's favor to the Supreme Court's reversal, explaining how religious practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies even when an applicant does not explicitly disclose a religious affiliation. Beyond the legal analysis, the paper explores the ethical dimensions of the case, evaluating the company's conduct, its lawyers' arguments, and the importance of whistleblower protections and stronger HR policies in preventing religious discrimination in hiring.
- Case Background and Court Proceedings: Facts, circuit ruling, and Supreme Court reversal
- Title VII and Religious Accommodation: Statutory definition and application to hijab
- Ethical Dimensions of the Case: Company conduct and litigation ethics evaluated
- Systemic Failures and Whistleblower Protections: Manager misconduct and need for reporting mechanisms
- HR Policy Reforms to Prevent Discrimination: Proposed hiring policy changes to deter interference
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It moves logically from legal analysis to ethical critique to practical policy recommendations, giving the argument a clear and progressive structure.
- It uses direct quotation from Title VII statute to anchor the legal analysis in authoritative primary source language.
- It distinguishes between the company's systemic failures and the individual manager's misconduct, adding nuance to the ethical discussion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied legal-ethical analysis: it identifies the relevant statute, explains how the court interpreted it, and then layers an independent ethical evaluation on top of the legal outcome. This two-track approach — asking both "what did the law say?" and "what should the actors have done?" — is characteristic of business ethics and employment law writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with the facts and procedural history of the case, then defines the controlling legal standard (Title VII religious accommodation). It pivots to an ethical critique of Abercrombie's litigation strategy, followed by two policy-focused sections addressing whistleblower mechanisms and HR hiring rules. The conclusion is embedded within the final policy section rather than presented as a standalone paragraph.
Case Background and Court Proceedings
This paper examines the dispute between Abercrombie & Fitch and a job applicant who wore a hijab to her interview — a case ultimately settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Samantha Elauf, wore a hijab to the interview but did not inform the company that she was Muslim. Abercrombie & Fitch maintains a "look policy" that prescribes specific appearance standards for its floor staff. The circuit court initially found that Abercrombie & Fitch was not required to accommodate Ms. Elauf because the company had not been expressly told that she needed religious accommodation. She had not clarified that she was Muslim or that she wore the headscarf for religious reasons — a disclosure that would have triggered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections.
The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the applicant's need for religious accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision not to offer her a position. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the suit on Ms. Elauf's behalf. The circuit court had sided with the company on the theory that Abercrombie could not have discriminated against her on religious grounds if it was never made aware of her religion during the interview. Abercrombie's lawyers further argued that wearing a headscarf does not necessarily indicate a religious practice, as the garment is not inherently religious in nature. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the company had violated the Civil Rights Act.
Title VII and Religious Accommodation
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is the protected-class basis at issue in this case, specifically the category of religion. The statute defines religion as including:
"all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business."
Under Title VII, an employer may not fail or refuse to hire an individual on the basis of religion, particularly where reasonable accommodation can be made. Ms. Elauf's hijab falls squarely within the statutory definition of religious practice, entitling her to Title VII protections. The allegations were that Abercrombie & Fitch could have accommodated this religious practice within its employee appearance code — wearing a hijab certainly does not preclude one from being fashionable. The Supreme Court's ruling confirmed that the company's failure to hire Ms. Elauf constituted a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Ethical Dimensions of the Case
Although this is fundamentally a legal dispute, the handling of the case raises significant ethical questions. The company could reasonably have inferred that Ms. Elauf was Muslim — or at least possibly Muslim — and would require religious accommodation. Evidence showed that she had been "highly rated and recommended for hiring" at the Abercrombie Kids store, but was downgraded by the regional manager specifically because of her headscarf (Totenburg, 2015). This indicates a legal violation on the manager's part, which then forced the company into a courtroom defense.
The arguments advanced by Abercrombie's lawyers, however, raise independent ethical concerns. Knowing that the company was likely in the wrong, counsel chose to feign ignorance in order to secure a favorable outcome for their client. This approach violates ethical norms requiring honesty and integrity in professional conduct. The company had the option to simply hire Ms. Elauf or accept the initial $20,000 settlement offer; instead, it spent more than that amount defending a manager who had broken the law. Such a choice reflects poorly on the organization's ethical culture, not merely its legal strategy.
References
Stoneburner, C. (2015). Supreme Court snatches victory away from Abercrombie & Fitch in hijab fight. Employment Discrimination Report. Retrieved October 22, 2015, from
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved October 22, 2015, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Totenburg, N. (2015). Justices: Retailer can't refuse to hire someone because she wears a hijab. NPR. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.