Samatha Elauf, a muslim teenager who wore a hijab as part of her faith, appled for a job in her local Abercrombie and Fitch store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She did not get the job for failing to conform to the company's "look policy", which banned head coveings. Alleging religous discrimination, Elauf filed a charge with the EEOC, which in turn filed suit against Abercrombie and Fitch. The EEOC claimed the company refused to hire Elauf based on her religous identification and thus failed to accomodate her religious beliefs by prohibiting head coverings. After holding that the evidence established Ms Elauf wore a hijab in order to represent her religous faith, the trial court granted summary judgment on liability to EEOC. It also estalished that Abercrombie and Fitch was on notice of the religious nature of her practice, and that, as a result, it refused to hire her. Ms Elauf was subsequently awarded damges by a jury for the discrimination.

Decision Appealed

Abercromie and Fitch appealed the trial court's decision, and a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the comapny. The court of appeals held that Abercrombie and Fitch was not on sufficient notice of Ms Elauf’s religious practice beMs cause, despite correctly "assuming" that Elauf wore a headscarf because of her religion, the company did not receive from Elauf explicit, verbal notice of a conflict between the “look policy” and her religious practice. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court held that to prevail in a disparate-treatment (intentional discrimination) claim under Title VII, an applicant/employee need show only that his/her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his/her need.

Final Resolution

Abercrombie and Fitch agreed to pay $25,670 in damages to Ms Elauf and $18,983 in court costs. Ms Elauf commented: 'I was a teenager who loved fashion and was eager to work for Abercrombie & Fitch. Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights, and happy that EEOC was there for me and took my complaint to the courts.'