Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

Background\n\nA retail clothing company enforced a strict "Look Policy" banning caps, and Samantha Elauf, a Muslim job applicant, wore a headscarf for religious reasons. The interviewer rated her hireable but asked managers whether the headscarf violated the policy. The district manager instructed not to hire her. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on her behalf. The District Court found for the EEOC and awarded $20,000, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court agreed to decide the legal rule.\n\nReasoning\n\nThe main question was whether Title VII requires an applicant to tell an employer about a needed religious accommodation before suing. The majority held that Title VII forbids refusing to hire someone because of a religious practice when that practice was a motivating factor, even if the applicant did not explicitly request an accommodation. The opinion explains motive, not notice, is the key; Congress did not add a notice requirement. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and sent the case back for further review. The opinion also left a narrower factual question about employer knowledge for lower courts to consider.\n\nReal world impact\n\nEmployers with neutral dress or work rules must take care that avoiding accommodations does not motivate hiring decisions. The ruling means employers may face liability even when applicants did not ask for exceptions. The lower courts must resolve factual disputes about whether decisionmakers knew or suspected the practice was religious and whether accommodation would cause undue hardship.\n\nDissents or concurrances\n\nA separate opinion would require employers to know a practice is religious before liability, and another Justice argued that applying a neutral policy is a disparate-impact issue, not intentional discrimination.\n\n