Religious Discrimination: EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Analysis

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Abercrombie & Fitch The case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) vs. Abercrombie & Fitch began in October of 2014. Samantha Eulaf, a practicing muslim woman, interviewed for a job at one of the storefronts of the corporation, Abercrombie & Fitch. Following the interview, Eulaf was not hired due to her headscarf which was not acceptable in the guidelines of the store’s look policy. The EEOC then stepped in to speak on Eulaf’s behalf claiming that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant's religious practice when the practice can be accommodated without undue hardship. The first court to examine the case was the District court of Oklahoma. In February of 2015, the district court granted summary judgement to the EEOC which in turn did not result in a full trial. Contrary to

Abercrombie & Fitch has been scrutinized for countless years for objectifying women and religious discrimination. If the United States government makes a law such as Title VII, then it should be followed and should have consequences if not. Abercrombie & Fitch was not held completely accountable by district court of San Jose. There should be no wiggle room for companies, especially when it comes to islamic discrimination. Abercrombie & Fitch stated they would revise their look policy when in reality they did nothing to change the environment their employees work in. The store needs to refile and reexamine their policies and stipulations. If the company cannot accommodate a growing acceptance of religion in America, then perhaps they should not be in business. I have a growing dislike for the company as I examine their previous lawsuits and cases of discrimination and