HR Case Study Analysis: Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Unit 1

This report analyzes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores case, focusing on its significance to Human Resources. The case involves a Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, who was denied employment due to her headscarf, which violated the company's dress code. The report outlines the case background, the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the employee, and the court's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case clarified that employers are liable for disparate treatment regardless of their knowledge of an applicant's religious practices. The report emphasizes the importance of considering employee accommodation requirements and highlights the employer's liabilities in such situations. The case serves as a crucial lesson for HR professionals, emphasizing the need to be mindful of religious accommodations and avoid discriminatory practices.

Unit 1
Written
Assignment
Running Head: 0
3 / 8 / 2 0 2 0
Student’s Name

1
Contents
Case Background.............................................................................................................................1
Case summation...............................................................................................................................1
Case Ruling......................................................................................................................................1
Case significance to Human resource..............................................................................................2
References........................................................................................................................................3

2
The case selected for the purpose of discussion here is Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) which is related to human
resource management. The presented report shall discuss the background, summation, ruling,
and significance of the case to HR.
Case Background
To discuss the background of the case, this is to state that the same is related to Muslim
American woman Samantha Elauf. In 2008, this lady was declined to do the job at Abercrombie
& Fitch because she wore a scarf on the head during the interview which was against the dress
code policy of the company. The person who took this interview was impressed with the
qualification and qualities of Elauf, nevertheless was also concerned about the issue of the scarf.
When the discussion took place between the parties, the manager of the company stated that
during the performance of the job, Elauf would not be allowed to wear her headscarf. Whereas
on the different side, Elauf wanted to wear a scarf for religious reasons and hence the manager
refused to hire her.
Case summation
When the matter when into the court, the Supreme Court has provided the decision in the
favor of the employee as on 1 June 2015 (caselaw.findlaw.com, 2020).
Case Ruling

3
While deciding the matter different judges have provided their views. Justice Samuel A.
Alito, Jr. stated that in those cases where it can be proved that the employer knew the religious
practice of employee then the employee is not required to mention this separately to the
employer. It was decided by the majority of judges that "The disparate-treatment provision of
Title VII” states that certain motives must be there and the knowledge of the religious practice of
applicant is not necessary. In its final decision, the court held that to hold the employer
responsible under the provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employee only
has to do one thing, which is to prove the fact that his/her religious practice was a motivation
behind his/her non-selection or removal. The majority opinion has been given by ANTONIN
SCALIA, according to that in a disparate treatment claim, an employee needs to prove that the
need of accommodation acted as a motivating factor in the decision of the employer.
Case significance to Human resource
The case is very significant in the field of human resources as it clarified the
interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision of the case clearly stated that no
matter whether the employer knew the applicant's need for accommodation or not, they shall be
held liable for disparate treatment. It gives a lesson to the employer that they should always take
care of the accommodation requirement of employees, as they cannot take the excuse of not
having knowledge of the actual situation. In other words, this can be stated that the fact and
decision of the case focus on the liabilities of the employer.

4
References
caselaw.findlaw.com. (2020) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Abercrombie
&Amp; Fitch Stores, Inc. Retrieved From: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-
court/14-86.html
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. ___
(2015)