- Religious accomodation in the workplace
- Equal pay and prior salary information
- I quit! How to avoid constructive discharge
- You Can't Shred Email
- Navigating Unemployment Claims
- Considering Criminal History in Pre-Employment Decisions
- Defamation Claims from Former Employees
- Mixed Motive Causation
- Requesting Accomodation: Kowitz v. Trinity Health
- Antitrust Law in Human Resources
- An Evolving Standard: Joint-Employment
- What Does At-Will Employment Mean for Employers?
- Let's Talk About Wages
- THE FLSA: CHANGES ARE COMING
- Follow Up: Obesity and the ADA
- The Importance of Social Media Policies
- Is Obesity a Qualifying Disability under the ADA?
- Retaliation on the Rise: The EEOC Responds
- What Motivates You?
- "But I thought ...
- Who’s expecting? And what is he expecting?
- Are You Still Doing Annual Performance Reviews?
- Who is Your Employee?
- The unpaid intern trap Part II
- “We’ve been the victim of a cyber-attack”
- So, a Hasidic Jew, a nun in a habit and a woman wearing a headscarf walk into your office?
- The unpaid intern trap
- Pregnancy in the workplace
- Let's talk about honesty.
- "Did You Know" Series - Part I
- Conducting an Internal Investigation
- What HR can look forward to in 2015!
- The chokehold of workplace technology
- Does your company have trade secrets?
- North Dakota Construction Law Compendium for 2014
- Does the North Dakota baby boom affect you?
- Ban the Box? Why?
- The end of the world as we know it
- Everybody has an opinion
- Changes, Changes, Changes!
- Nick Grant presents at North Dakota Safety Council's 41st Annual Safety and Health Conference
- Email impairment: A potentially harmful condition
- Are Employers Required to Give Stressed-Out Employees Time Off?
- Can you obtain a credit report when investigating employee wrongdoing?
- Can’t we just sidestep the ACA?
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part III
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part II
- Should Your Employees Telecommute?
- Proper Investigation of Employee Misconduct
- Battles in the Wellness War
- Rules are rules! Aren’t they?
- What's going on in Bismarck
- A glimpse ahead
- Obesity as a disability under the ADA – reweighing the issue
- What’s next for your business under the Affordable Care Act?
- Criminal Background Checks
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 5 of 5]
- Congress Says Yes To North Slope Energy Jobs Bill
- Test Your Knowledge of Social Media Policies and Employee Discipline
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 4 of 5]
- What Every Employer Needs to Know About the NLRA
- Will the 2012 Elections Make A Difference
- Where There's Smoke...
- Dress Code Etiquette: Is Casual Friday Becoming Freaky Friday
- The Next Disaster May Be Yours
- Hostile Work Environment Claims
- North Dakota Employment Law Links
- There's An App For That
- Am I a “Business Associate”? Why Should I Care?
- Do You Recognize a Cat's Paw When You See One?
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part II
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 3 of 5]
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part I
- The Economy - What HR Professionals Need To Know
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 2 of 5]
- Three New Challenges For HR Professionals
So, a Hasidic Jew, a nun in a habit and a woman wearing a headscarf walk into your office?By: Paul Ebeltoft
This may sound like the beginning of a joke, but it is merely paraphrasing an example given by a Justice of the United States Supreme Court during oral argument in the case of EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc., Abercrombie is not laughing.
On June 1, 2015, the high Court decided that preppie retailer, Abercrombie and Fitch, violated Samantha Elauf’s rights when it took points away from her otherwise stellar pre-employment review because she wore a hajib, a headscarf. Worn by devote Muslim women, the hajib did not fit the “Abercrombie look.” Ms. Elauf was not hired. She sued and won $20,000, but Abercrombie and Fitch appealed … and the case, as they say, went all the way.
So, you might be thinking, isn’t it already an article of faith (if you’ll excuse the pun) among HR professionals that employers cannot discriminate in hiring or conditions of employment on account of one’s religion? Why, you might ask, did Abercrombie do this and why did it take the top court of the land to state the obvious?
“This is really easy.”
is what Justice Antonin Scalia intoned when announcing the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision from the bench. But was it? The Abercrombie “Look Policy” laid out in exacting detail what its "sales models" can wear when they're helping customers or folding clothes on the sales floor. Elauf, who was 17 at the time, interviewed for a sales model position in one of Abercrombie's locations in Oklahoma. She wore a hajib. The assistant manager who spoke with Elauf gave her high marks but, after telling Elauf to expect a work orientation appointment, the assistant manager had second thoughts. “I think [the Look Policy] says … you can't wear hats. So I was unclear,” the assistant manager was quoted as saying. She kicked the decision upstream. Abercrombie’s district manager then told the store assistant manager not to hire Elauf. “You still can't hire her [even if she wears the headscarf for religious reasons] because someone can come in and paint themselves green and say they were doing it for religious reasons, and we can't hire them," the district manager said.
According to National Public Radio in a February, 2015 review of the case, the Elauf lawsuit raised some tough questions: Did Abercrombie know that Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons? Should they have asked if they were uncertain? Was it Elauf’s responsibility to bring up a connection between her faith and her headscarf during her interview, so that Abercrombie could figure out how to accommodate her? In other words, who bears the responsibility for knowing that a religious accommodation is in order?
In its June 1, 2015 decision favoring Elauf, the Supreme Court held that it is the employer’s responsibility to provide “reasonable accommodation without undue hardship” even if the applicant or the employee does not ask. Justice Scalia, writing for the overwhelming majority of the Court (only Justice Thomas dissented) said that “an applicant need only show that his [or her] need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision….” An employer seeking to avoid accommodation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Scalia wrote, “even if [the employer] has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.”
Will it be “really easy” for HR professionals?
Do you currently ask your job applicants about their religion or religious practices? No. Does the Abercrombie decision require you to do so? Probably in some cases. This will be a fine line for HR professionals to walk. Under the Abercrombie rule, if you suspect an applicant’s or an employee’s garb or actions to be a religious practice, you must accommodate it, unless accommodation causes undue hardship. But to determine whether your suspicion is real, do not inquire directly of the religious practice. Rather, outline the part of your company’s policy which may prohibit the practice you suspect is religiously based. Then ask “do you have a problem with complying with our policy?”
This dialogue is familiar to HR professionals. You now ask, for example, whether an applicant will have any trouble working a particular job schedule or meeting other job requirements. The dialogue that such questions engender help your employee or a prospective employee understand that there is a policy or a job requirement that they may have to meet. They may also learn for the first time that their religious beliefs may butt up against a company policy. The dialogue will also tell the employer whether there is a need for accommodation. No, it won’t be easy to follow the Abercrombie decision, but HR professionals are up to the task.
Our interest in serving you
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the June, 2015 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.