Abercrombie Discrimination Case Study

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

Christianity is 76.5% of the population (the latest available poll was in 2000), this means Christianity is a majority and has more religious privileges due to mutual wants from Christian Americans. The bias towards Christians leaves other religions scrambling for essential, human rights. A lot of cases have led to certain religious rights, however, they aren’t applicable to every religion in America. There is a demand for separate laws and trials to fully encompass the variety of religious requirements, not just ones centered around Christian requirments. Having cases such as Sherbert v. Verner, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, and Fowler v. Rhode Island to protect the rights of true religious freedom.

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)

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

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.

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.

Employment Discrimination) Under the circumstances that the plaintiffs establishes a valid prima facie case the burden then transfers to the defendant and the Defendant must provide evidence of intent to accommodate otherwise, have a legal explanation on why the plaintiffs request would prove impossible without the business suffering. The Toledo v. Noble case points out that, “The Supreme Court has held that the intent and effect of this definition of ‘religion’ is to make it a violation of § 2000e-(a) (1) for an employer not to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, for the religious practice of the employees and prospective employees.” (Toledo, v. Noble Sysco, Inc.) Furthermore, the plaintiffs Claim that, the company is forbidding an extensive group of Muslim employees from practicing their religion at sundown, will thereupon be questioned. As a matter of fact, under title VII the Burdon would initiate on the plaintiff who would be required to prove that the defendant acted in an unlawful matter and discriminated against the plaintiff’s

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).

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

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

Central to nearly every discussion about the progress and advancement that the United States has collectively enjoyed has been a question about the value and worth of human labor. Undoubtedly, one for the most resounding truths for the United States has been that the country has managed to find a dominant global status and domestic success due to the contributions of its citizens. Science, education, art, and all other industries have flourished due to the efforts of hundreds of people hailing from different backgrounds. Yet despite this historical precedent establishing the need for valuing the contributions of others, there continues to be a resounding national dismissal

Amino acids are among the most proven staples of bodybuilding and sports nutrition, touted for their ability to improve recovery, strength and endurance. To uphold the Animal name, Juiced Aminos have been formulated with instantised BCAAs and EAAs, plus patented ingredients and time-tested performance agents, producing superiorly enhanced amino acid supplement.

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

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

According to Keyton, organizational culture is "the set of artifacts, values, and assumptions that emerges from the interactions of organizational members" (Keyton, 2014, p. 550). Over the past few years, past and potential employees of the clothing brand Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) have taken to the media to explain the negative organizational culture that exists within the company. The management values and company policies that create this “image-obsessed culture” have led to multiple human rights lawsuits, which has damaged the reputation of Abercrombie & Fitch globally (Benson, 2013).