Religious Discrimination Article 2022

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, or gender. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts have issued several rulings dealing with workplace discrimination and this Act. For this assignment, you will review the Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination in EEOC Suit, Court Says (Links to an external site.) case press release. After you review the case study, address the following: Examine the specific issues Umme-Hani Khan encountered in the workplace. Assess whether the actions of A&F represent discrimination and harassment. Evaluate the elements of the law that are important for A&F to consider. Assess what actions of the HR director could have taken in response to Umme-Hani Khan’s situation.

University
Discrimination and Harassment
Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination in EEOC Suit
Student Credentials
3/1/2020

Criminal Law 1
Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination in EEOC Suit
The case of Umme –Hani Khan and A & F is a sheer example of discrimination and
harassment at work. As per the case, there is no evidence of Ms. Khan acting in an
inappropriate manner or in any way violating the rules of the firm apart from their ‘look
policy’ as such. The time when she was hired by the manager, even the day of the interview
itself, Ms. Khan wore her hijab and there were no restrictions implied on her before this. The
clause of the look policy caused an issue when an external manager stated an issue regarding
the same. Close assessment of the Supreme Court's choice in Abercrombie and the different
circuit case law paving the way to it uncovers the complexities and complexities of strict
work segregation law (Fetner, 2013).
As far as the issues are concerned, both the parties had to face serious repercussions
of the case. The abovementioned case could have been avoided, as when Ms. Khan was hired
she could have been told or highlighted as such about the issues that might have arose or any
such policy in the employment. These measures as such were never taken care of, resulting in
discriminating behaviour against Ms. Khan. As per the words of Ms. Khan the victim here,
she clearly stated that as per the norms or the religious belief, she could not remove the hijab
when she was approached with the external manager. Here when hiring was done, clear
statement could have been made or specific information relating to the issue that might arise
in future could have been stated that one cannot wear any headwear would not be allowed at
work as what was clearly stated in the looks policy of the firm. Apart from this,
discrimination on the basis of one’s religion is something that has to be considered as a very
serious offence. As stated by a judge in the case, one cannot be restricted if they wish to
practice a certain religion to wear or depict something as stated in their holy book or as per
their tradition. There was no lack in the work Ms Khan did and the other employees as well

Criminal Law 2
as the on field manager, all were supportive of the same. Since, there was no deficiency on
Ms. Khan’s part regarding her work. Before being removed from her job, this could have also
been regarded as she was a stock room employee and did not have to deal with the customers
as such. In this case, there was clear mention of discrimination on the basis of the religion
that Ms. Khan practiced. It was also considered that she was harassed by the external
manager when she was suspended from her job for following her religion (Schmitz, 2015).
Here in this case, the major points those need to be considered by the employers as
such in such cases to avoid such situations are, managers ought to take part in accordance
with some basic honesty in an intuitive procedure with workers who demand facilities,
regardless of whether they accept the procedure isn't probably going to triumph. (For Mr.
Khan's situation, the honourable court as such noticed that the firm Abercrombie here had not
initiated any great confidence endeavours to suit her, and that the HR director here had made
up his mind here to dismiss Khan from her position despite the instance of headscarf was
recognised or taken into consideration). Secondly, another aspect that needs attention here is
that the strategies as such should be applied or regulated reliably as well as sensibly as in it
should. (For Khan's situation, the court accentuated willingness of Abercrombie to file a case
where changes to the appearance were not made in accordance with the Look Policy of the
company and its post-end offer to restore Khan with authorization to wear a headscarf. As per
the two it so appeared to repudiate its disproportionate guard and also to make that resistance
seem nonsensical (Valenti & L. Johnson, 2017).
In the repercussions of this choice, the primary hazard that may emerge for managers
originates from the way that a few bosses may now be enticed to ask, unequivocally,
regardless of whether a mentioned convenience depends on a strict conviction. This could
incite undesirable claims on the grounds that such inquiries could incite doubt of strict
separation or be viewed as a demonstration of segregation. Accordingly, this choice displays

Criminal Law 3
a circumstance where managers may be sued on the off chance that they ask, yet in addition
may be sued in the event that they don't inquire (Flake, 2016). On the brilliant side, in any
case, managers should be careful that this choice doesn't imply that businesses will lose
future claims in the event that they really don't think about a worker's strict convictions, or on
the off chance that they have a suspicion however are spurred in their choice by different
elements. That piece of the law has not changed. By the by, businesses should now be on
high ready when they know or if nothing else suspect that something is being worn for strict
reasons. In such a case, a business should step cautiously and counsel with lawful insight
before pushing ahead, to limit dangers (SLU, 2020).

Criminal Law 4
Bibliography
Fetner, H. (2013). Court holds Abercrombie & Fitch liable for failing to accommodate
Muslim employee’s headscarf. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from Lexology:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=90d19dd6-68d7-4873-8e72-
1de443630cb6
Flake, D. F. (2016). Religious discrimination based on employer misperception. Wis. L. Rev.,
87.
Schmitz, G. R. (2015). EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: when religion and fashion collide.
Retrieved March 1, 2020, from Lexology:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1a82363d-6af7-4a71-a8cd-
e1ae8ab8a2ea
SLU. (2020). ‘A MOTIVATING FACTOR’ – THE IMPACT OF EEOC V.ABERCROMBIE &
FITCH STORES, INC. ON TITLE VII RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS .
Retrieved March 1, 2020, from SLU:
https://www.slu.edu/law/law-journal/pdfs/issues-archive/v61-no1/amina_musa_note.p
df
Valenti, A., & L. Johnson, V. (2017). The Real Impact of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc: "Look Policies " —Effective Business Strategies or Legal Liabilities?
Corporate Counsel Review.

Criminal Law 5