Most job applicants won’t ever know the whole reason why they weren’t hired. And even the plausible stated reason for rejection might not be the true reason.
But one young woman, assisted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was able to learn why retailer Abercrombie & Fitch in Tulsa, Okla., didn’t hire her. And the U.S. Supreme Court said the reason constituted discrimination.
The back story: Samantha Elauf, a Muslim, wore a headscarf to her job interview. The subject of her faith never came up. But she wasn’t hired as a sales associate because her headscarf conflicted with the retailer’s “Look Policy” designed to promote the preppy style of Abercrombie clothing.
The company has since changed its headscarf policy and settled other similar lawsuits. Meanwile, Elauf’s case worked its way through the U.S. courts until the nation’s high court ruled against the company.
The court ruled 8-1 that an employer must accommodate applicants and employees with religious needs if the employer even suspects that accommodation is necessary.
The majority of justices agreed that an applicant doesn’t have to ask for religious accommodation, but if the employer thinks accommodation might be required, the employer can’t fail to hire in order to avoid providing that accommodation.
While most applicants won’t work through the tortuous path of litigation, the high court once again enforced Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits religious discrimination.
“An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions,” the court said.
Veena Iyer, an employment law attorney at Nilan Johnson Lewis in Minneapolis, quickly sounded the alert. The ruling is important “especially in light of the fact that many practices that conflict with a work requirement or rule may not be obviously religious,” she said.
Here are the EEOC’s relevant reminders for employers:
- Requiring an employee's religious garb, marking or article of faith to be covered is not a reasonable accommodation if that would violate the employee's religious beliefs.
- An employer may bar an employee's religious dress or grooming practice based on workplace safety, security or health concerns only if the circumstances actually pose an undue hardship on the operation of the business, and not because the employer simply assumes that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship.
- When an exception is made as a religious accommodation, the employer may still refuse to allow exceptions sought by other employees for secular reasons.
- Neither co-worker disgruntlement nor customer preference constitutes undue hardship.
- It is advisable in all instances for employers to make a case-by-case determination of any requested religious exceptions, and to train managers accordingly.
About the Author
