The young Muslim Samantha Elauf won her lawsuit against Abercrombie group when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday, June 1st, in favor of a Muslim girl, against the apparel retailer Abercrombie & Fitch. They had refused to hire her as a sales rep under the pretext that she wore the hijab, the Islamic veil. The decision was made by a very large majority of eight votes against one.
The case originated when Samantha Elauf went to a job interview in Tulsa, Oklahoma with a black head scarf, without specifying that she wore for religious reasons in 2008. Her candidacy was at first accepted and then rejected by the supervisor of the recruiter. He considered that wearing the veil “violates” the dress code Abercrombie & Fitch requires of its employees. The group defined the style of his clothes as “casual” and a “good look chic bon genre” emblematic of the university youth of the East Coast of the United States.
Supported in particular by the Federal Agency for the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC), Samantha Elauf, who considers herself a victim of discrimination, attacked the company and obtained in the first instance 20 thousand dollars in damages before the appeal was dismissed. The court had taken the view that the Federal Act 1964 Civil Rights, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, religion, color, sex or national origin did not apply here, because the young woman had not explicitly stated this on the application of the rules of Abercrombie according to her testimony, she hadn’t invoked this at any time during the interview.
But the Supreme Court found that this arrangement hadn’t applied and didn’t constitute a sufficient reason for the Civil Rights Act. Justice Antonin Scalia asserted that the employer “at least suspected enough” that the young woman wore the headscarf for religious reasons. On February 25th, at the hearing, Abercrombie, supported by the Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbies, argued that it would be dangerous to require employers to inquire about the religion of a candidate during the hiring procedure, in order to avoid being accused of discrimination.
The majority therefore concluded Abercrombie was guilty of discrimination “when they intentionally refused to hire Samantha Elauf because of her hijab, having correctly concluded that Elauf wore the hijab for religious reasons.” Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter in the decision, on the contrary, held that the mere application of a neutral policy should not be regarded as discrimination.