Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
731 F.3d 1106
10th Cir.2013Background
- Abercrombie’s Look Policy prohibited headwear and required Model staff to wear clothing consistent with store branding.
- Elauf, a prospective Abercrombie employee, wore a black hijab to a 2008 interview and sought accommodation due to conflict with the Look Policy.
- Cooke, the assistant manager, interviewed Elauf; she assumed Elauf was Muslim but did not inquire about religion or need for accommodation.
- Johnson, the district manager, instructed lowering Elauf’s interview score to keep her from hire due to the headscarf; Cooke altered the score accordingly.
- EEOC sued Abercrombie for failure to accommodate and discrimination under Title VII; district court granted summary judgment for EEOC on liability.
- Court holds there is no genuine fact issue that Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to hiring that the hijab was a religious obligation needing accommodation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice is required from applicant to trigger accommodation | Elauf's notice not required; employer should inquire. | Applicant must initially inform of religious conflict and need for accommodation. | Notice must be initial by applicant; district court erred |
| Whether Abercrombie faced undue hardship in accommodating hijab | Accommodation possible without undue hardship | Accommodation would impose undue hardship on brand | Court did not decide undue hardship at this stage; focus on notice element |
| Whether EEOC established a prima facie religion-accommodation case | EEOC can show conflict and notice regardless of explicit request | EEOC must show initial notice by Elauf of religious conflict and need for accommodation | EEOC failed to prove second element; Abercrombie entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether the district court erred in applying McDonnell Douglas framework | Framework flexible for accommodation cases; facts show triable issues | Apply standard analysis; no triable issues on notice | Majority reversed; summary judgment in Abercrombie appropriate; remand for judgment in Abercrombie or trial depending on issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 225 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2000) (bona fide religious belief conflicts with an employment requirement)
- Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481 (10th Cir. 1989) (notice requirement in accommodation claims)
- Dixon v. Hallmark Cos., 627 F.3d 849 (11th Cir. 2010) (actual knowledge of conflict can satisfy notice requirement)
- Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc., 522 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2008) (notice of religious conflict cannot rely on mere knowledge of belief)
- Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2003) (employer not required to know applicant's beliefs; notice must come from applicant)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156 (Supreme Court 2012) (limits on deference to agency interpretations when regulation text is clear)