Religious protections expand in the workplace

In a closely watched employment law and civil rights case, the Supreme Court emphatically rejected the common employer argument that employees have no right to a religious accommodation in the workplace unless they explicitly ask for one. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is openly and devoutly religious, wrote the majority opinion in the case, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, to address the high-profile discrimination claims asserted.

The case involved a Muslim woman who sought employment with Abercrombie & Fitch, to no avail, because she wears a head scarf or hijab as part of her religious practice. Abercrombie & Fitch contended that it did not have to hire the plaintiff, Ms. Samantha Elauf, because her head scarf violates the employer’s “look policy.” Although Ms. Elauf did not request a religious accommodation during her job interview with Abercrombie & Fitch, meaning she did not seek formal permission to work with the headscarf as an employee of the company, she did wear the headscarf throughout the job interview.

In reversing the lower court and rejecting the standard employer defense in these types of cases, the Supreme Court declared, “[a] request for accommodation . . . may make it easier to infer motive, but it is not a necessary condition of liability.” Notably, groups representing Christians, Jews, and Sikhs filed submissions in support of the position of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Ms. Elauf. In other words, the Supreme Court clearly understood that employer policies like the one at issue here have a broad and adverse impact across religious faiths. Consequently, the ultimate decision in the case is as unsurprising as it should be welcome to employees everywhere.