This post is the next in our series regarding recent cases from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim who wore a headscarf to her interview with Abercrombie & Fitch (“Abercrombie”). While she received a rating that qualified her to be hired, she was ultimately denied the position because her headscarf would violate Abercrombie’s “Look Policy,” which prohibited employees from wearing “caps.” Subsequently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), acting on Elauf’s behalf, filed suit against Abercrombie, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The lower court ruled for Abercrombie, holding that an employer could not be liable under Title VII unless the applicant provided the employer with actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Title VII prohibition applies only when the applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation. The Court reversed the lower court, holding that a job applicant seeking to prove a Title VII disparate treatment claim need only show that the need for religious accommodation was a motivating factor in the prospective employer’s adverse decision, and thus, they need not show that the employer actually knew that the applicant’s practice was a religious practice that required an accommodation. The Court went even further explaining that Title VII doesn’t just require the employers to be neutral when it comes to religious practices, but goes beyond that by giving religious practices “favored treatment,” which means that policies which would otherwise be neutral must “give way to the need for an accommodation” of an applicant’s religious practices.
This case is significant because, to date, it is one of the strongest statements from the Court on Title VII protections for religious discrimination, and as such, is a major victory for religious rights in the workplace.