Head Scarves Before the Supreme Court; New York Times, 6/2/15

Editorial Board, New York Times; Head Scarves Before the Supreme Court:

"Abercrombie has since relaxed its dress policy and said it now grants requests for religious accommodations, including the wearing of hijabs. But the company’s claim of ignorance about Ms. Elauf’s reason for wearing her head scarf is hard to believe. If it truly did not know why she wore her head scarf, it could have asked her whether its dress policy would pose any problems for her, and made an accommodation for her at the time. Instead, it has litigated this case for seven years. All along, Ms. Elauf has felt “disrespected because of my religious beliefs,” as she testified during the trial. “I was born in the United States, and I thought I was the same as everyone else.” That goes equally for members of other religions, like Sikhism, who often face discrimination for turbans and beards that are in accordance with their beliefs.

The nearly unanimous ruling is a common-sense reading of the Civil Rights Act, and a good reminder for employers that the best policy is one of inclusiveness and accommodation."

Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court; New York Times, 6/1/15

Adam Liptak, New York Times; Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court:

"The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf. The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench.

The company, he said, at least suspected that the applicant, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The company’s decision not to hire her, Justice Scalia said, was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment discrimination law.

The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.""