Samantha Elauf outside the federal courthouse in Tulsa on July 20, 2011.
(Photo: Cory Young, Tulsa World)
Source: USA Today
WASHINGTON – Samantha Elauf didn’t look like a typical Abercrombie & Fitch sales associate, or “model,” when she applied in 2008 for a job in Tulsa, Okla. That much was clear from the retailer’s “look policy.”
But whether the preppy clothier’s refusal to hire the 17-year-old girl was due to her Muslim religion or simply because she wore a black hijab, or head scarf, during the interview is still being fought out seven years later. On Wednesday, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.
The justices must weigh the employment difficulties faced by religious minorities – in particular, Muslim women who cover their heads in public – against the rights of employers to avoid “undue hardship.” Their decision will hinge on a narrower question, however: Must the job applicant request a religious accommodation, or should the employer recognize the need for it?
Abercrombie & Fitch is a noteworthy defendant in the case. It settled a lawsuit brought by black, Hispanic and Asian-American college students for $40 million a decade ago and pledged to diversify its hiring, promotion and marketing practices. Since then, the company says, it has gone from fewer than 10% non-white sales associates to more than 50%.
In the new case, the federal government charges that the retailer discriminated “when it intentionally refused to hire Samantha Elauf because of her hijab, after inferring correctly that Elauf wore the hijab for religious reasons.” A half-dozen religious groups – ranging from Muslim to Christian, Jewish, Baptist, Evangelical and Sikh – have taken her side.
Categories: Americas, Highlight, Hijab, Secularism, Separation of Church and State
The Supreme Court will hear a religious freedom case on February 25, 2015
Washington (CNN)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.”
When Elauf sat down with assistant manager Heather Cooke to formally interview for the job, neither the headscarf nor religion ever came up. Cooke did refer to the policy, however, telling Elauf that employees shouldn’t wear a lot of make up, black clothing or nail polish.
Cooke thought Elauf was qualified for the job, but after the interview sought approval from her district manager regarding the headscarf. She says she told the manager that she assumed Elauf was Muslim and figured she wore the headscarf for religious reasons. The manager told her that Elauf should not be hired because the scarf was inconsistent with the “look policy.”
A federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Elauf’s behalf saying the store had discriminated on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The law makes it illegal for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire” an individual because of an individual’s religion unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate a religious observance or practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”
Abercrombie does not dispute that Elauf was not hired because of her headscarf. The company says its “look policy” is neutral on religion, but that employees are not allowed to wear headgear.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/24/politics/supreme-court-hearing-abercrombie-fitch/index.html
Samantha ,reminded me of my daughter’s friend Samantha whose father was a Sikh and mother was Afghan an muslim.Samantha moved with her parents to U.S.Her mother was American Muslim and she looked like a typical white, pretty ,healthy,happy girl.
My niece who is a dentist in Pakistan looks like the samantha in the news(Washington (CNN)Samantha Elauf).Every generation takes a different stance for clothing.They are committed to religious values and are influenced by friends and culture,media.The civilization and freedom of the place also determines the headscarves colour and texture.I remember when I was a medical college student all my three best friends non ahmedis wore a white ,soft,non slippery,non shining lawn scaef.It was secured with two small safety pins.Our other class fellows had white dupatta of different material and texture.We looked like Tablighee or jammmat e Islami .No
one if us was from these two Jammaats.Two were from ppp Romana and Farzana one Shabana was from PSF(pukhtoon students Federation).
Now in Canada and America our generation chooses different head scarves from Lebanese,or Somalian,or Afghani,……….and different colours,patterns and florals,and stripes to dots…..polka or small.Few still wears the black traditional black.
Few months ago ladies from Tahir hall went to Mill pond Park for a picnic.An old white man said;:why are you all wearing different colour scarves”I was wearing soft white
because it was sizzling hot and sunny,shining bright.I said to him that we have to cover our heads and it does not matter with what color. I am positively hopeful about the The Supreme Court will hear a religious freedom case
look-at-abercrombie-fitch-policy.