Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
798 F. Supp. 2d 1272
N.D. Okla.2011Background
- EEOC alleges Abercrombie discriminated against Elauf, a Muslim teen, by denying employment due to her head scarf conflicting with Look Policy.
- Elauf wore a head scarf during the interview; Cooke concluded the scarf indicated Muslim beliefs and sought guidance from management.
- District Manager Johnson instructed Cooke not to hire Elauf because she wore the head scarf, citing brand impact and policy constraints.
- Abercrombie maintains Look Policy prohibits headwear; it allows limited exceptions, but no nationwide practice of hiring such individuals.
- Abercrombie had previously approved head scarf exceptions (and other religious accommodations) but claims such exceptions create undue hardship.
- EEOC moves for summary judgment on liability; Abercrombie cross-moves for summary judgment on prima facie case and/or undue hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a prima facie case of religious discrimination? | Elauf wore a head scarf based on a bona fide religious belief and was not hired because of it. | Prima facie elements not satisfied due to lack of notice and/or bona fide belief linkage. | Yes; EEOC established prima facie case. |
| Is Elauf's head scarf worn for a bona fide religious belief? | Head scarf represents Islamic modesty and is religiously motivated. | Belief may be cultural; not conclusively religious. | Yes; Elauf's belief deemed bona fide religious. |
| Is Elauf's belief sincerely held? | Sincerity supported by long-standing practice and absence of deceptive motives. | Sincerity could be questioned due to partial mosque attendance and prayer frequency. | Yes; belief deemed sincerely held. |
| Did Abercrombie have notice of the need for accommodation? | Cooke knew Elauf wore a head scarf for religious reasons and consulted management for accommodation. | Notice was insufficient to trigger interactive accommodation process. | Yes; employer had notice of need for accommodation. |
| Would an accommodation cause undue hardship to Abercrombie? | No undue hardship; policy can be accommodated without brand damage. | Any accommodation would harm brand image and store experience; substantial burden. | Undue hardship not shown; accommodation not proven to be burdensome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redmond v. GAF Corp., 574 F.2d 897 (7th Cir. 1978) (broad definition of religion; not limited to mandated tenets)
- Fowler v. Rhode Island, 343 U.S. 67 (1953) (no business of courts to define religious practices)
- Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) (sincere, broadly defined religious beliefs receive protection)
- Philbrook v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 476 (2d Cir. 1985) (sincerity analysis to distinguish conscience from deception)
- Barber (International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber), 650 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. 1981) (factors indicating sincerity, including consistency and avoidance of fraud)
- Thomas v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 225 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2000) (interactive process and notice considerations in accommodation cases)
- Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481 (10th Cir. 1989) (undue hardship must be more than de minimis and based on facts)