Abercrombie Discrimination Case Study

Federal law and corporate governance prohibit discrimination and harassment, and Maalick, a minority with a unique religion, encountered inappropriate behaviors in the workplace. It is clear that the Treton office in Chenworth, Kansas had a prolonged atmosphere of ridicule, mistreatment, racial harassment, and religious discrimination. Contrary to protections afforded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, office personnel openly displayed inappropriate workplace behaviors and defied corporate policy and federal law (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2016). With Title VII regulating adverse actions against a person based on race and religion, workers perpetuated religious mocking and ridicule with head nodding and laughter to Maalick’s new religion.

Recognized for good-looking, all-American, and typically white male and female clothing models, Abercrombie & Fitch has develop into a special type of model of late-a model of asserted employment discrimination (Stephanie 2005). The clothing idol lately cleared up two private class actions and a civil action law suits by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") by consenting to compensate more than $40 million to African American, Hispanic, and Asian plaintiffs who claimed that Abercrombie discriminated against them (Stephanie 2005); Abercrombie in addition entered into a agreement with the EEOC recognized as a Consent Decree. In Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie, et al., West v. Abercrombie, et al., and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the plaintiffs disputed that they were either restricted to low visibility, back-of-the-store kind jobs or laid off and fired on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

In the article Religious-Discrimination Claims on the Rise by Melanie Trottman, it is stated that “the EEOC received 3,811 religion-based complaints in fiscal 2012, the second-highest level ever and just below the record 4,151 in 2011” (Trottman, 2013, p. 1). In another article Study: Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise by Mike Ward lists similar number of religion-based complaints. The article by Trottman mentions that the EEOC has filed religious-discrimination lawsuits against companies in the fast-food, hair-salon, aviation, hotel, retail, medical and health-services industries. A recent case that the article mentions is about Muslim woman who worked at Abercrombie and was fired by the manager because her hijab violated

Firstly, one of the main facts of this case is the fact that the company refused to hire a covered woman due to her religious practices and beliefs. According to the New York Times website, Mrs. Elauf felt, as she states it in Liptak’s article, discriminated and “disrespected because of her religious beliefs” (Liptak, 2015). She explains how the company action results in a religious discrimination which is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Samantha also declares that the denial of her being hired is a result of an unequal treatment against her due to her religious beliefs although she is an American citizen. All Samantha Elauf tried to do was get a job in a company where she is used to be a customer as she enjoys fashion and thought she would receive the same treatment another American uncovered woman would receive as they are both American citizens thus should receive equal treatment no matter what the professional situations are. Yet, she was refused a job she could have obtained in

How you choose to dress yourself shouldn’t be the main focal point of judgements that are passed on to you. Hijabs, and other garments similar to Hijabs such as Turbans, aren’t a way of oppression. They’re also not just a piece of cloth that one has decided to cover him or herself

Despite the reasonable intent, Abercrombie and Fitch crossed a line when they refused to allow some leeway when it was for a religious cause, much like Trans World Airlines in the TWA v. Hardison case. Trans World Airlines fired Hardison after he refused coming into work on Saturday due to his religious beliefs. He sued TWA and won, claiming his religious beliefs were being sabotaged by unjust work hours. These cases are alike in the way that the employers declined to accommodate to an employee's religious needs, excusing their actions by saying the person in question didn’t follow company

Businesses have been the heart of economic growth since the beginning of the United States. Not only has businesses been at the center of this nation but also freedom of religion as well. In this case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., its how the business (Abercrombie & Fitch), denies Samantha Elauf the job at that store because she wore a head scarf because she was a practicing Muslim.

In our society we are not forced by the government to wear specific articles of clothing in public. For example, an Arabic woman must wear an Abbaiya in the public eye whether at work

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion. In fact, the law “requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee when that employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observance conflict with a work requirement unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship to the employer” (Fowler-Hermes & Gierbolini, 2014, p. 34).

One of the most major rights being religious freedom among corporations. For example, in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the discussion of “religious freedoms” among corporations was brought up regarding the “contraceptive mandate” issued to employees under the Affordable Care Act. Although this was a 5-4 case in which the corporation was victorious, it is aiding in setting a precedent for religious corporations to “unjustly force their beliefs” on their employees (Millhiser). As a result, workers of any religious beliefs who desire contraceptives are limited by Hobby Lobby, a product that is granted by law. Not only is this interfering with the the Affordable Care Act, but it is also empowering corporations to influence the rights held by their workers. On the other hand, others may not regard this as a significant issue for the Supreme Court’s application of religious exemption applies only to “closely held private corporations”. However, this is not the case as “More than 90 percent of all US firms are close corporations” (Nagar 1). This means that a decision such as the one adjudicated for Hobby Lobby can apply to nearly all American

In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie & Fitch, a teenager Samantha Elauf filed against Abercrombie and Fitch’s company after she was denied employment at a store for “failing to accommodate” because she wore a hijab for religious practice. The incident first began in 2008 after Samantha’s interview with an employer at a store in Oklahoma. After she was informed of the reason why she wasn't hired, she filed a court case against the company for religious discrimination. In the District Court of Oklahoma, the court decided that Abercrombie’s “look policy” stating that employees must abide by dress code rules was perfectly reasonable. They agreed with the employer that Samantha must take off her hijab for work regardless

The law forbids discrimination of religion to any aspect including hiring, firing, pay, job, promotions, layoffs and other terms or conditions of employment, however that does not stop it from happening. ABC news journalist, Morgan Winsor, publishes an article about Muslim employers stating they have been able to take prayer breaks until “a new policy beginning on Jan. 25” where “there is no additional accommodations for prayer” that is affecting not only their job but now their religious beliefs. Muslim employees are enraged that the Wisconsin Arien Company’s new policy is discriminating their right for prayer. The employee’s filed a discrimination report to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) hoping for a solution. The employees are being forced out, unless they obey the new policy, of Arien’s company that use to let Muslim workers take prayer breaks. The Title Vll of the Civil Right Act of 1964 requires, “employers to accommodate religious beliefs.” Winsor continues to state, “Arien’s management allegedly threatened to fire those employees who continued to pray beyond the scheduled breaks.” United States of America prohibits religious discrimination, especially when its affects citizen’s opportunity for employment. The Muslim’s Arien’s management suppresses the U.S. EEOC laws against discrimination therefore the company’s case

While this type of behavior can be reported by current employees, there are many Muslim and Arab Americans that are stating that they have been denied employment all together, and factor the post 9/11 stigma as the reason. Arab Americans who dress in their traditional or religious attire have been turned down for jobs simply because what they look like or “represent” in the minds of certain people. Hijabs, burkas or other head scarfs worn by some Muslim Arab Americans have been cited as the reason for being denied a job or if hired, given a job that is out of the sight of customers or other consumers. Abercrombie & Fitch was sued by an Arab American girl who was denied employment because her head scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a ‘classic East Coast collegiate style’” (Limtak, 2015). Her case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled that the actions of Abercrombie were discriminatory in nature. The company contends that they were unaware that she was wearing the scarf for religious purposes, however, they do not deny that the scarf was the main reason she was denied a

With the existence of the provisions of Title VII the Burdon exists on the employer to be aware of all the laws that surround the work force whether it is public or private. According to Business today in any case of discrimination the plaintiff would have to file a claim with the work out an out of court settlement otherwise both parties will go to trial. It is important to note that, lower courts have set up methods for evaluating claims and determining who holds the burden of proof. In reference to the Toledo v. Noble case, the plaintiff must meet his burden by presenting a credible prima facie case of religious discrimination. A valid prima facie case is completed if the plaintiff’s religion restricts them from achieving an employment requirement

The case EEOC. V. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, went all the way to the Supreme Court. The vote in the Supreme Court was 8 to1. It seemed that it was an easy decision for the judges. They did send it back to the lower courts. It went back and forth between courts but at the end the EEOC and Ms. Elauf won. Justice Scalia that over saw the case wrote” Ms. Elauf did not make a specific request for a religious accommodation to obtain relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” (Liptak)