Abercrombie & Fitch Doesn't look too good to Supreme Court
2 min read
Feb 28, 2015
In a case we discussed earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court did not appear impressed with Abercrombie & Fitch's recent argument that a hijab wearing applicant needed to ask for religious accommodation before they were obliged to grant it to her. News sources have reported that oral argument this past Wednesday seemed to favor Samantha Elauf's right to an accommodation even though the teenage, Muslim job applicant in Tulsa did not explicitly tell Abercrombie & Fitch that she was wearing the black head scarf for religious reasons.
Abercrombie & Fitch, which has since changed the "Look Policy" that was used to deny Ms. Elauf's application, was vigorously questioned by the Supreme Court including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. who essentially said "c'mon, really?" in response to the company's position that it should not be forced to guess whether an applicant was wearing a head scarf for religious reasons. The Justices spent a considerable amount of time discussing whether the company or the applicant should bear the burden of starting the religious accommodation discussion and seemed to settle on placing the burden with the company. By contrast, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the applicant bore the burden of requesting a religious accommodation.
Although the Supreme Court will not issue a decision for several months, it appears that a majority will side with Ms. Elauf and likely require retail companies like Abercrombie & Fitch (and others) to at least begin religious accommodation discussions with applicants when the need appears obvious (although the companies should never assume facts about applicants). For now, it seems safest for companies to simply inform the applicant of any relevant policy and ask if that presents a problem, which is a good place to begin any interactive, accommodation discussion. This is an important case for companies to follow and we will report again when the Supreme Court's opinion is published to make sure companies are aware of their obligations and implement appropriate policies and practices.
With questions about this case, please contact your Hinshaw employment attorney.
Featured Insights

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments

Event
May 7, 2026 - May 9, 2026
Anshuman Vaidya Presents on IRS Criminal Tax Enforcement Priorities at the ABA Tax Meeting

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

In The News
Apr 24, 2026
Michael Dowell Reviews New PBM Reform Reshaping Pharmacy Reimbursement

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026




