Global Freedom of Expression

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Non-verbal Expression
  • Date of Decision
    June 1, 2015
  • Outcome
    Remanded for Decision in Accordance with Ruling, Monetary Damages / Fines
  • Case Number
    135 S.Ct. 2028
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Religious Freedom
  • Tags

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

After Abercrombie & Fitch did not hire Samantha Elauf because her religious headscarf violated the company’s dress code, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie. The Supreme Court of the United States rejected Abercrombie’s arguments that it had not violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because Elauf had not shown Abercrombie’s “actual knowledge” of her need for accommodation, as the need for an accommodation need only be a motivating factor in an employer’s decision.


Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Abercrombie), a retail clothing company, did not hire prospective employee Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf known as a hijab. Her headscarf, as well as other “caps,” violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy” governing employee dress.

On Elauf’s behalf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a claim that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court found in favor of the EEOC, awarding Elauf damages. The Tenth Circuit Court later reversed by granting Abercrombie summary judgment, holding that liability for failure to accommodate only attaches after the prospective employee request accommodation from the employer.

Decision Overview

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer cannot decline to hire a prospective employee in an attempt to avoid accommodating the prospective employee’s religious practice, assuming the employer could accommodate without undue hardship. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether Title VII’s limitation on employers is only triggered when the prospective employee has notified the employer of the need for accommodation.

Abercrombie argued that a prospective employee must show the employer’s “actual knowledge” of the need for accommodation before arguing there was disparate treatment. The Court rejected this argument, instead saying that the prospective employee need only show that the employer’s hiring decision was motivated by the need for accommodation. “The disparate-treatment provision forbids employers to: (1) ‘fail … to hire’ an applicant (2) ‘because of’ (3) ‘such individual’s … religion’ (which includes his religious practice).”[1]

Because both parties concede that Elauf wore her headscarf as part of her “religious practice,” the Court only needed to evaluate if Abercrombie had failed to hire her “because of” this practice. The Court noted that Title VII does not have a knowledge requirement, unlike other antidiscrimination statutes. Instead, certain motives are prohibited irrespective of the employer’s knowledge.

Abercrombie argued that parties must raise failure to accommodate claims as disparate-impact, rather than disparate-treatment. The Court rejected this argument because Title VII defines “religion” to include both belief and practice. Thus, religious practices are protected and must be accommodated. Abercrombie also argued that neutral polices cannot qualify as “intentional discrimination.” However, as the Court pointed out, Title VII bestows upon employers an affirmative obligation to accommodate and not to refuse or fail to hire an employee because of his or her religious practice, rather than “mere neutrality with regard to religious practices.” Therefore, in an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case for a judgment in accord with its ruling.

[1]-slip op. at 4.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The Supreme Courts decision expanded religious expression because it affirmed that a victim of discrimination need not show actual knowledge of the need for a religious accommodation. An applicant must only show that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision not to hire the prospective employee, not that the employer actually knew of his or her need. This requires employers to accommodate all religions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Tit. VII, codified at § 2000e.

  • U.S., Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

United States Supreme Court cases are binding precedent upon all lower courts in the U.S.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Amicus Briefs and Other Legal Authorities

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback