The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 1 that companies cannot discriminate against job applicants or employees for religious reasons, even if an accommodation is not requested.
The decision was a defeat for Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F), which refused to hire a Muslim girl in 2008 because she was wearing a black “hijab,” or headscarf. It could benefit job applicants and employees who need time off for religious observances as well as those who adhere to strict dress codes.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the 8–1 decision for a near-unanimous court, save for Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent. Scalia reasoned that even if the clothier did not know Samantha Elauf’s religion, it still motivated the decision to deny her employment.
“The rule for disparate-treatment claims … is straightforward,” Scalia wrote. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”
Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the Supreme Court “got this one right.”
K. Hollyn Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said in a written statement the court “confirmed the fundamental principle in [the federal law’s] ban on religious discrimination in employment. Neither a person’s religion nor the potential need to accomodate a religious practice should be a basis for denying a prospective employee a job.”
During oral arguments in February, both liberal and conservative justices refused to believe A&F’s insistence that Elauf, 17 at the time, was turned down simply because of the head scarf, not her faith.
In his dissent, however, Thomas defended the company, claiming its “neutral look policy” cannot constitute intentional discrimination.
The court’s decision could have implications for religious minorities’ job opportunities and companies’ hiring practices. Muslim women who cover their heads encounter some of the biggest problems. Businesses, on the other hand, claim that requiring them to cater to all religious minorities’ observances is an “undue hardship.”
‘Look policy’
The clothier’s “look policy” affects the type of clothing, jewelry and makeup its sales representatives can wear, including atop their heads. But it often grants exceptions upon request.
The circumstances in Elauf’s case actually posed a narrow question: Must the job applicant request a religious accommodation, or should the employer recognize the need for it? During her job interview, Elauf never brought up her religion and her interviewer never asked.
A&F contended that employers should not be forced to inquire about a job applicant’s religion for fear of appearing to discriminate.
It issued a statement following the court’s decision noting “significant enhancements to our store associate policies, including the replacement of the ‘look policy’ with a new dress code … and changed store associates’ titles from ‘model’ to ‘brand representative.’”
(RNS, BP)
Share with others: