Running head: ELAUF VS.

ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH STORES

Elauf vs. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores

Brittany Brown, Gabriella Goodfield, Tommy Lee, and Xaviera Woodside
Law/531
April 6, 2015
Professor Norma Sutton

ELAUF VS. ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH STORES

Elauf vs. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores

Case:
Abercrombie and Fitch stores refuse to hire Samantha Elauf because of her religious
Belief among Sabrina Elauf, religious belief is the wearing of headscarf that is sometimes call
Hijab. According to Abercrombie, the wearing of the Hijab violates their Look Policy. All
employees must comply with the Look Policy. During the job interview, Ms. Elauf was inform if
she wore the Hijab at work it cannot be black. Although Ms. Elauf did not officially inform of
the religious beliefs the store knew how she dress. The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission states that Abercrombie and Fitch stores violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 because Abercrombie and Fitch has not provided reasonable religious adaption
to Samantha Elauf.
Issue:
Did the employer violate Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by not hiring a
future employee or firing an employee base on the fact that the employee or future
employee fail to inform the employer of the religious observance? In addition, did the
employer violate Title IV because the employer did not give reasonable religious beliefs
adaption? Meaning if a religion requires a woman to wear Hijab then the company must
adapt this belief in case of the woman.
Rule:
According Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it is illegal refuse hiring or discharge a
person bas on their religion. This includes religious observance (Cheeseman, 2013 pg. 547).

ELAUF VS. ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH STORES

There is need to inform the employer of the observance of practices if these practices do not
interfere with the employee work.

Analysis:
An employer is trying up hold their policy on how the employees dress while a work. This
due the fact they want to attract one type of clients and at the same have a certain image of the
stores or company. This applies for people who apply for a job at the company. The company
can refuse to hire base on how they dress even if they dress base. Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 provides provision that make sure that everybody looking for work will have the
same chance of being hire. Employers cannot use the excuses not to be hire base on race, age,
sex, color, and religion.
Conclusion:
The Employment Opportunity won the case base on Title VII of the Civil Right Act of
1964. The act also provides that a company have to give accommodation base on religious

beliefs. The Abercrombie and Fitch Stores violate the EOC Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.

ELAUF VS. ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH STORES

Reference
Cheeseman, H. (2013) Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics,
and International Issues (8th ed.) Pearson Education, Inc. a Prentice Hall
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/115110.pdf
Carmon, I. (2014) Supreme Court to hear Abercrombie & Fitch discrimination case
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-hear-abercrombie-fitch-discrimination-case