EEOC Against Abercrombie And Flitch Stores

657 Words2 Pages

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
A case of EEOC against Abercrombie & Flitch Stores
The EEOC is a United States agency that enforces judicial and administrative of the civil rights in ensuring there is equal opportunities in employment. They also use technical assistance and education to run the platform. It works hand in hand with two bodies, one in charge of civil rights while the other mandated with contract compliance when implementing its obligations (United States Department of Labour, 2018).
A case emerged between the commission and the Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc in 25 th February 2017. Abercrombie is a clothing industry and a major supplier in the country. The firm formulated a law that no employee is allowed to wear a black cloth …show more content…

She was a Muslim and had to wear headscarf and hijab which she maintained at the interview. She omitted to mention the cause of her dressing and so did the interviewer. However, the interviewer in consultation with her manager decided to lower her score which altered her overall performance. She eventually lost the job.
The Commission on behalf of Samantha, sued the firm for violating the employment act established in 1994 under civil rights. The management in response, claimed that she refused to mention why she had to wear the headscarf yet she was aware of the Look Policy before the application.
The hearing
During the hearing, the question which emerged was as follows. If an employer is responsible for rejecting some applicants due to their religious beliefs out of ignorance. This is based on the commissioned act of 1994. An employer is not expected to judge the applicants based on their cultural practices (Oyez, …show more content…

It was held that for the liability of the employer, the applicants had to show a motivating factor to be accommodated under the employer’s decision. The act prohibits such disparate oppression and moreover, it does not require the knowledge of the job owner about status of the interviewees. Samantha proved that her failure was objected from the employer’s decision of working against some religious practices under the Title VII. Furthermore, the court emphasized to shift focus from mere neutrality and insisted that the act was created to accommodate and corporate all religious practices (Eeoc.gov, 2018). It is not the duty of applicants to inform the interviewer about their religious status thus, Justice Samuel concurred with the judgement arguing that the employer was held liable for the fault.
The commission acts on behalf of the job applicants who feel that their rights have been violated based on their characters, background believes. They affirmatively prohibit discrimination against gender, age, religious, sexual abuse and physicality. Everybody has an equal opportunity in doing a task as long as they are qualified. Based on my opinion, I agree with the judgement because we are all equal and our respective backgrounds does not matter. After all, we never chose to be born where we were born. Rules must be protected and adhered to for fairness and equality to

Open Document