Ambercore and Fitch lawsuit has two sides of the story. The issue at the court aimed at assessing whether the retailer violated the federal law of banning religious discrimination. Nonetheless, the arguments presented illuminated that Ms. Elauf had been discriminated from working despite demonstrating high levels of competence for her job ( Collins & Sokolowski, 2015; Zakrzewski, 2005) . Accordingly, the issue presented before the court argued that despite being highly qualified for the position, Ms. Elauf was denied a chance due to wearing the hijab.
Companies have a right to employ candidates that they deem fit and worthy for positions advertised. America is a free market system. In effect, jeopardizing a business chance to business due to stereotyping may have adverse impacts on the profitability of the company. The fact that the firm stated its principles with respect to the dressing codes expected, it was right to deny Ms. Elauf the chance to work. Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts demands that it is the responsibility of the applicant to advise their potential employer regarding divergence from conventional religious practice, thus the need for accommodation ( Geller, 2015 ). Resultantly, the company cannot accommodate employees who may not find it fit to market their products, as they have to represent a particular look.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Abercombie maintains that if the applicant wants a religious exception, she was supposed to make up her case to the employer at the time of the interview. The fact that she did not lodge a complaint yet she had read the firm’s Look Policy implied that she was negligent of the organization policies and sought to downgrade her qualification based on dressing codes and religious background. However, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitc (2015), sued the company on behalf of the plaintiff. The actions implied that the company has a responsibility towards its employees.
The fact that the interviewer did not state the policy of the organization with regards to religion and dressing implied that they had a free policy to hiring. Thus, denying the applicant the chance to work diminishes them the opportunity for equal employment.
References
Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. (2015, June 12). Supreme Court sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch hijab case (Links to an external site.) [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/06/articles/discrimination/supreme-court-sides-with-eeoc-in-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case/
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch (Links to an external site.) . 575 U. S. 1 (2015). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf
Geller, P. (2015, June 2). Why would a devout Muslim want to work at Abercrombie and Fitch? (Links to an external site.) Retrieved from http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/02/why-would-a-devout-muslim-want-to-work-at-abercrombie-and-fitch/
Zakrzewski, K. (2005). The prevalence of “look”ism in hiring decisions: How federal law shoud be amended to prevent appearance discrimination in the workplace (Links to an external site.) . U. Pa. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 7 (2), 431-461. Retrieved from https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume7/issue2/Zakrzewski7U.Pa.J.Lab.&Emp.L.431%282005%29.pdf
