We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Abercrombie refer to the retail staff as 'models'. Facebook/Abercrombie
model employer

Abercrombie say they hire 'models' for their stores so Muslim hijabs are not allowed

Abercrombie argues they forbid their staff wearing “caps” of any sort.

THE US SUPREME Court will this week weigh-in on accusations that Abercrombie and Fitch illegally rejected a Muslim job applicant because of her hijab.

Abercrombie argued that its store policy forbids sales staff — whom it calls “models” — from wearing “caps” of any sort, and that Samantha Elauf, then 17, should have made clear in her 2008 interview that she could not comply due to her religion.

“Before her interview, Ms Elauf knew the position required her to model the Abercrombie style, knew the style of clothing that Abercrombie sold and also knew that Abercrombie did not sell headscarves,” the company said in a court brief.

It stressed that floor staff are expected to sport a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint on behalf of Elauf against Abercrombie.

The company is known for sales associates often dressed in racy attire, and attorneys for EEOC say she is protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under the act, no one can be refused employment based on their religion, unless the employer cannot accommodate the person’s religious beliefs without adversely affecting business.

The closely watched case could have deep ramifications for how businesses hire their employees because it would place the burden on employers to warn job applicants of any characteristics that could hurt their candidacy, experts say.

A federal district court sided with Elauf and her lawyers in the case, but she the lost an appeal.

The appeals court ruled that the 1964 act only protects employees who provide “explicit notice of the need for a religious accommodation.”

andf Elauf won a first court case but lost on appeal. Instagram Instagram

The US Supreme Court, which usually sides with those who claim their religious freedoms have been violated, sharply criticized the appeals court decision, warning it “will lead to irrational results in other cases as well.”

“Who bears the burden of initiating a dialogue as to any potential religious conflict?” asked Rachel Paulose, a former US attorney, in explaining the key question at the heart of the case.

“The EEOC argues the burden should be on the employer if it suspects a possible (religious) conflict, while Abercrombie argues… the initial responsibility (is placed) squarely upon the employee or applicant in every situation.”

The case has received support from religious rights groups and US President Barack Obama’s administration, which appealed the Colorado court’s decision.

The EEOC said its cases involving complaints of religious discrimination have more than doubled in the past 15 years.

A decision by the high court is expected in June.

© – AFP 2015

Read: America will let this Muslim prisoner grow a beard >

Read: In three months, gay marriage could be legal in all 50 US states >

Your Voice
Readers Comments
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.