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

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

