Samantha Elauf was apprehensive to interview for a sales job at retailer Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008 because the 17 year old wore a headscarf in accordance with her Muslim faith. But a friend of hers, who worked at the store, said he didn’t think it would be a problem as long as the headscarf wasn’t black because the store doesn’t sell black clothes.
Ultimately Elauf failed to get the job, and her story has triggered a religious freedom debate regarding when an employer can be held liable under civil rights laws . The Supreme Court will hear the case on Wednesday.
Like many retailers Abercrombie has a “look policy” aimed to promote what it calls its “classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing.”
Many employers have special clothing requirements, especially in retail and food service. This young woman couldn’t, for instance, work at Hooters because she wouldn’t care to dress as Hooters requires. If Abercrombie doesn’t allow hats, then it doesn’t allow hats. End of story. I have no love for Abercrombie, but it sounds to me like this is well within its legal rights.
If you are interested in a more detailed, but still readable, summary of this case, I recommend this essay by Lyle Denniston, the undisputed dean of Supreme Court reporters:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-faith-and-a-workplace-dress-code/
Thank you for that link, William P. Sulik.
Sure. And here’s Lyle’s comments on today’s oral argument:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-analysis-plucking-simplicity-out-of-complexity/#more-225393
He left me confused, #4, as to whether Justice Alito was going to side with the government or the company. If with the government, he is proposing a new rule not previously required, according to the defense.
I’ll watch for the ruling.