In Landmark Civil Rights Win, SCOTUS Rules Against Abercrombie
Top court says retail giant unlawfully denied Samantha Elauf a job for wearing a hijab
In what is being heralded as a far-reaching win for civil rights, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled (pdf) that an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma unlawfully discriminated against a Muslim job applicant by rejecting her for a sales position because she wore a hijab.
In an 8-1 decision, the court sided with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which levied the suit on behalf of Samantha Elauf.
Elauf was denied a sales associate position at a Tulsa Abercrombie & Fitch store in 2008--when she was 17-years-old--after she showed up for the interview in a hijab. The company's official reason was that Elauf's head scarf violated its "look policy" at the time. However, Elauf charged that the rejection amounted to religious discrimination.
After Elauf complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency levied a suit against the retail giant under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on religious grounds.
Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the company charged that it was the responsibility of Elauf to specifically ask for religious accommodation.
Abercrombie & Fitch's argument was ultimately rejected by the top court, with Justice Clarence Thomas issuing the only dissent. The court's majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "The rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions."
Elauf cheered the outcome of her long legal battle in a statement released Monday: "I was a teenager who loved fashion and was eager to work for Abercrombie & Fitch. Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights, and happy that the EEOC was there for me and took my complaint to the courts. I am grateful to the Supreme Court for today's decision and hope that other people realize that this type of discrimination is wrong and the EEOC is there to help."
The court's decision was immediately applauded by civil rights and religious freedom groups as well. "The Supreme Court got it right on this one," said William Burgess, senior staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in an interview with Common Dreams. "This underscored the fact that a job applicant's religious beliefs and practices can play no role in an employer's hiring decision."
Allegations of discrimination by the retail giant, however, extend far beyond this one case. Over the past decade, the company has settled on suits regarding discrimination against Muslim, Latino, African-American, and Asian job applicants.
Burgess, whose organization filed an amicus brief in the case--said the Supreme Court's ruling "will have fairly broad implications, as a lot of minority religious job applicants do encounter discrimination." Organizations representing Christians, Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims had filed documents on Elauf's behalf.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, Simran Jeet Singh, senior religion fellow for the Sikh Coalition, called this a "landmark case."
"As we have seen time and again, when our country engages in the unfair treatment of entire communities, it effectively gives a green light for all Americans to do the same," wrote Singh. "Discriminatory policies filter down to the American public and send the message that it is okay to treat marginalized communities as second-class citizens."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In what is being heralded as a far-reaching win for civil rights, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled (pdf) that an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma unlawfully discriminated against a Muslim job applicant by rejecting her for a sales position because she wore a hijab.
In an 8-1 decision, the court sided with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which levied the suit on behalf of Samantha Elauf.
Elauf was denied a sales associate position at a Tulsa Abercrombie & Fitch store in 2008--when she was 17-years-old--after she showed up for the interview in a hijab. The company's official reason was that Elauf's head scarf violated its "look policy" at the time. However, Elauf charged that the rejection amounted to religious discrimination.
After Elauf complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency levied a suit against the retail giant under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on religious grounds.
Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the company charged that it was the responsibility of Elauf to specifically ask for religious accommodation.
Abercrombie & Fitch's argument was ultimately rejected by the top court, with Justice Clarence Thomas issuing the only dissent. The court's majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "The rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions."
Elauf cheered the outcome of her long legal battle in a statement released Monday: "I was a teenager who loved fashion and was eager to work for Abercrombie & Fitch. Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights, and happy that the EEOC was there for me and took my complaint to the courts. I am grateful to the Supreme Court for today's decision and hope that other people realize that this type of discrimination is wrong and the EEOC is there to help."
The court's decision was immediately applauded by civil rights and religious freedom groups as well. "The Supreme Court got it right on this one," said William Burgess, senior staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in an interview with Common Dreams. "This underscored the fact that a job applicant's religious beliefs and practices can play no role in an employer's hiring decision."
Allegations of discrimination by the retail giant, however, extend far beyond this one case. Over the past decade, the company has settled on suits regarding discrimination against Muslim, Latino, African-American, and Asian job applicants.
Burgess, whose organization filed an amicus brief in the case--said the Supreme Court's ruling "will have fairly broad implications, as a lot of minority religious job applicants do encounter discrimination." Organizations representing Christians, Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims had filed documents on Elauf's behalf.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, Simran Jeet Singh, senior religion fellow for the Sikh Coalition, called this a "landmark case."
"As we have seen time and again, when our country engages in the unfair treatment of entire communities, it effectively gives a green light for all Americans to do the same," wrote Singh. "Discriminatory policies filter down to the American public and send the message that it is okay to treat marginalized communities as second-class citizens."
In what is being heralded as a far-reaching win for civil rights, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled (pdf) that an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma unlawfully discriminated against a Muslim job applicant by rejecting her for a sales position because she wore a hijab.
In an 8-1 decision, the court sided with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which levied the suit on behalf of Samantha Elauf.
Elauf was denied a sales associate position at a Tulsa Abercrombie & Fitch store in 2008--when she was 17-years-old--after she showed up for the interview in a hijab. The company's official reason was that Elauf's head scarf violated its "look policy" at the time. However, Elauf charged that the rejection amounted to religious discrimination.
After Elauf complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency levied a suit against the retail giant under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on religious grounds.
Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the company charged that it was the responsibility of Elauf to specifically ask for religious accommodation.
Abercrombie & Fitch's argument was ultimately rejected by the top court, with Justice Clarence Thomas issuing the only dissent. The court's majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "The rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions."
Elauf cheered the outcome of her long legal battle in a statement released Monday: "I was a teenager who loved fashion and was eager to work for Abercrombie & Fitch. Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights, and happy that the EEOC was there for me and took my complaint to the courts. I am grateful to the Supreme Court for today's decision and hope that other people realize that this type of discrimination is wrong and the EEOC is there to help."
The court's decision was immediately applauded by civil rights and religious freedom groups as well. "The Supreme Court got it right on this one," said William Burgess, senior staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in an interview with Common Dreams. "This underscored the fact that a job applicant's religious beliefs and practices can play no role in an employer's hiring decision."
Allegations of discrimination by the retail giant, however, extend far beyond this one case. Over the past decade, the company has settled on suits regarding discrimination against Muslim, Latino, African-American, and Asian job applicants.
Burgess, whose organization filed an amicus brief in the case--said the Supreme Court's ruling "will have fairly broad implications, as a lot of minority religious job applicants do encounter discrimination." Organizations representing Christians, Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims had filed documents on Elauf's behalf.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, Simran Jeet Singh, senior religion fellow for the Sikh Coalition, called this a "landmark case."
"As we have seen time and again, when our country engages in the unfair treatment of entire communities, it effectively gives a green light for all Americans to do the same," wrote Singh. "Discriminatory policies filter down to the American public and send the message that it is okay to treat marginalized communities as second-class citizens."