The US Supreme Court appeared Wednesday to be supportive of a Muslim
woman who claimed she was denied a sales job with fashion retailers
Abercrombie & Fitch as a teen because of her Islamic headscarf.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal
government agency, is suing Abercrombie on behalf of Samantha Elauf,
on the grounds she was discriminated against because of the firm’s
dress code.
The clothing company is known for populating its stores with
bare-chested male models and female staff in somewhat racy attire. Its
salespeople are required to conform to “Abercrombie style”, defined as
a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”
The company does not allow employees to wear “caps” of any kind or the
color black, but scarves are not explicitly forbidden. Any departure
from the dress code is regarded as grounds for disciplinary action,
including dismissal, on the basis that it can negatively impact the
company’s image, brand and sales.
But during a one-hour long hearing at the Supreme Court on Wednesday,
several justices appeared to be troubled by the case. Attorneys
arguing Elauf’s case say she is protected by the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, which bars anyone from being refused employment based on their
religion, unless the employer cannot accommodate the person’s
religious beliefs without adversely affecting business.
Abercrombie is fighting the case, arguing that Elauf did not
specifically request an exemption from the company’s dress code on
religious grounds.
What if Sikh or Jew?
All but one of the nine Supreme Court justices, whether progressive or
conservative, seemed to be leaning towards the side of the government
and the numerous religious organizations that have taken up the cause
of the young Muslim, who was 17 at the time of her 2008 interview.
“The only reason she was not hired is because of her religious
belief,” Justice Samuel Alito noted. Given that Abercrombie’s dress
code did not apply to job interviews, the company had presumed that
Elauf would wear the scarf each day at work if hired, Alito said.
Alito asked what the store’s approach would have been towards a
jobseeker arriving for an interview dressed entirely in black, a Sikh
wearing a turban or a Jew wearing a yarmulke. “You think each of them
has to say, ‘I’m dressed that way for religious reasons?'” he asked
Abercrombie’s attorney.
Judge Stephen Breyer added there were “millions of people” whose
religion could be perceived based on their names or style of dress.
But Shay Dvoretzky, an attorney for Abercrombie, argued that the
company would be forced to “deviate from a religion-neutral policy
based on mere
suspicion.”
“Having that kind of standard will inevitably lead employers to
stereotype,” Dvoretzky said. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested
Abercrombie was required to “accommodate” religious practices. “They
don’t have to accommodate the baseball cap but they do with
headscarves,” added Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Elauf, who stood smiling on the steps of the Supreme Court Wednesday
after the hearing, had been awarded 20,000 dollars in damages at an
earlier hearing before being dismissed on appeal. “I am grateful to
the EEOC for taking this religious discrimination case to the courts,”
she said in a statement.
“I am not only standing up for myself, but for all people who wish to
adhere to their faith while at work. Observance of my faith should not
prevent me from getting a job.” The court’s decision will be announced
before the end of June. (Chantal Valery, AFP)
Photos: Jim Bourg/Reuters