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.
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.