Very best courtroom to Weigh Rejection of Muslim Applicant Over Head headscarf

In an technology of heightening religious anxiety international, Abercrombie & Fitch has pulled off a miracle: The store managed to unite Christians, Jews, and Muslims, in addition to Buddhists, Hindus, Santeros, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. lawyers representing a majority of these faiths (and agnostics and atheists, too) have joined together for a superb court case reviewing a spiritual-bias lawsuit in opposition to Abercrombie & Fitch.

The trustworthy, because it occurs, are united towards Abercrombie.

sixteen non secular-advocacy agencies have filed pal-of-the- court docket briefs siding with the U.S. identical Employment opportunity commission (EEOC) in a discrimination case scheduled to be argued on Feb. 25. The EEOC is appealing a lower-courtroom decision that stated Abercrombie couldn’t be held responsible for rejecting a Muslim process applicant primarily based on her sporting a conventional head protecting known as a hijab. That choice, reached by the U.S. court of Appeals for the tenth Circuit in Denver, concluded that the plaintiff, 17-12 months-vintage Samantha Elauf, wasn’t protected via name VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to the fact she failed to inform an Abercrombie interviewer explicitly that she wore the hijab for non secular reasons.

Abercrombie acknowledges that its hiring employees understood why Elauf wore a hijab to her interview at an Abercrombie kids shop in Tulsa. The retail chain prohibits store personnel from carrying head coverings—part of its “appearance coverage,” which cultivates “a traditional East Coast collegiate style of apparel”—but stresses in its preferrred courtroom short that the coverage is “religion-impartial.” moreover, Abercrombie’s quick provides, “accommodating religious exercise isn't always usually truthful, in large component due to the fact it may be difficult to inform who wants or desires lodging.” The EEOC’s very own tips, the agency contends, “have lengthy pondered this problem through acknowledging that it is typically the employee’s or applicant’s obligation to ask for lodging—not the employer’s job to guess.”

EEOC quick

In its brief, the EEOC says Abercrombie misunderstands its guidelines for applying title VII. The law, the enterprise says, “prohibits an corporation from refusing to hire a job applicant primarily based on what the organization successfully is familiar with to be the job applicant’s religious observance or exercise, except accommodating that practice would motive the organisation problem.” The EEOC continues: “Employers who suspect a possible spiritual warfare can really recommend an applicant of the relevant paintings rules and ask whether or not (and why) the applicant would be not able to comply.”

religious organizations agree. In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Council on American-Islamic members of the family argues that the 10th Circuit’s ruling “locations unreasonable burdens on character task candidates and employees who outwardly display their religion thru dress and grooming practices.” A joint short from the american Jewish Committee and different Jewish groups moves a more conciliatory tone, noting that most workplace conflicts over religion can be addressed through dialogue and “notably easy resorts.” As a end result, “identify VII’s faith provisions should be interpreted to encourage ‘bilateral cooperation’ between employers and cutting-edge or prospective personnel.” but the 10th Circuit omitted those ideas, the corporations argue, through “imposing precise and arduous necessities on candidates and personnel who searching for to set up religion-based totally discrimination.”

The Becket Fund for spiritual Liberty, a public-hobby regulation company that often supports Christian causes, but also stresses its representation of other faiths, warns that the 10th Circuit’s selection would impose “a presumption that employees are nonreligious unless they explicitly announce in any other case, essentially growing a fashionable of ‘safety upon request only’ that erodes the vital position that religion performs in society.”

Abercrombie does have help from the U.S. Chamber of trade and the country wide Federation of impartial commercial enterprise, which filed a joint pal-of-the-court docket brief endorsing the retailer. The EEOC’s position, the commercial enterprise agencies argue, would permit “for the recuperation of damages with none showing of intentional discrimination.” The agencies add that the EEOC is searching for to put in force “a freestanding ‘failure to house’ claim [that] unearths no aid in the statutory textual content.” Endorsing the government’s position, the quick asserts, “might simplest add more confusion to a place of employment-discrimination regulation that has already lost its manner.”

The justices are expected to rule through overdue spring on whether, or how, Abercrombie can keep its preppy tradition at the same time as integrating the trappings of non-WASP perception structures. The outcome is tough to handicap. A majority of the justices have generally proven sympathy for commercial enterprise complaints about the burdens of purchaser and employee litigation. alternatively, the tenth Circuit’s strikingly corporation-friendly wellknown for religious-bias suits stands in tension with rulings of different decrease courts. on this too-near-to-call environment, the denominationally various friend-of-the-court docket briefs should very well sway justices to vote against Abercrombie & Fitch.