BU 217 Unit 7 real case analysis example

A Headscarf, a "Look Policy" and an Applicant Who Never Asked: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, What the Court Decided and What the Company Should Have Done

Student Name

Business, Herzing University

BU 217: Business Ethics and the Legal Environment

Instructor Name

February 26, 2026

A Headscarf, a "Look Policy" and an Applicant Who Never Asked: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, What the Court Decided and What the Company Should Have Done

What Happened

In 2008, Samantha Elauf, a 17-year-old Muslim woman who wore a headscarf for religious reasons, applied for a sales job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The company had a dress code it called its Look Policy, which prohibited "caps" among other items; it did not define the term. The assistant manager who interviewed Elauf rated her as qualified to be hired but was concerned that her headscarf would conflict with the policy. She asked her district manager, telling him she believed Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons. He said the headscarf would violate the Look Policy, as would any other headwear, religious or not, and directed her not to hire Elauf (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 2015). Elauf never mentioned religion or asked for an exception during the interview.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Elauf's behalf under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination because of religion. The public record in the opinions does not say what dress-code guidance store managers had received about religious clothing, or how often similar applicants had been turned away, and this paper does not guess.

What Was Decided

The federal district court ruled for the Commission on liability, and a jury awarded $20,000. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that an employer is liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice only if the applicant has given it actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation, which Elauf had not.

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit on June 1, 2015, by a vote of 8 to 1, in an opinion by Justice Scalia. It held that to prevail on a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that the need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer knew of the need. The Court explained that Title VII defines religion to include religious practice and forbids making it a motivating factor in an employment decision, and stated that "an employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions." It also rejected the argument that a neutral dress code shields an employer, observing that Title VII gives religious practices "favored treatment" rather than requiring mere neutrality. The case was sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings. Justice Alito agreed with the result on different reasoning; Justice Thomas dissented in part (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 2015).

What remained unresolved at the Supreme Court: whether Abercrombie could have shown that accommodating the headscarf would impose an undue hardship, the defense the statute allows in its definition of religion at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. That question was left for the remand; the parties later resolved the case without a further decision on it.

Ethical Analysis

The legal question was whether Abercrombie violated Title VII. The ethical question is whether its conduct was right, and it can be judged separately.

Honesty and fairness to the applicant. Abercrombie's managers believed Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons and rejected her for it, while never asking her whether she would need an exception or telling her why she was not hired. The decision turned on an assumption about her practice that she was never given a chance to address. Fair treatment of an applicant, especially a teenager with far less power than a national retailer, would have meant a conversation: here is our policy; is this something you wear for religious reasons; let us see whether we can accommodate it.

Respect for persons. A dress code exists to project a brand. Using it to exclude someone because of a religious practice treats the person's faith as a cost to the brand's image. The deontological objection is direct: it uses the applicant's appearance as a means to a marketing end without regard to what the practice means to her.

The company's interest in a consistent image is legitimate, and the ethical analysis does not require abandoning dress codes. It requires treating religious practice as a reason to consider an exception, which is what the Court read the law to require as well. The course text notes that the law often codifies a minimum ethical standard and that firms should build policies that meet the standard's purpose rather than its letter (Crane et al., 2019).

What the Company Should Have Done

The better practice was simple and cheap: train managers that a dress code is a starting point, not a verdict; when an applicant's appearance suggests a religious practice that may conflict with it, ask whether an accommodation would be needed and consider it; and document the decision. A headscarf in a brand-approved color would almost certainly have imposed no hardship at all. Later law has only strengthened that conclusion: the Supreme Court has since held that an employer claiming undue hardship must show a burden that is substantial in the overall context of its business, not merely more than trivial (Groff v. DeJoy, 2023).

Lessons for Managers Beyond the Case

The case is often taught as a religious discrimination case, but its lesson for managers is broader. Abercrombie's district manager made a hiring decision based on an assumption about an applicant, while telling himself he was simply applying a neutral rule. The Court's answer was that the law looks at why a decision was made, not only at the wording of the policy applied. A manager who rejects an applicant because of something the manager believes about her, whether religion, disability or pregnancy, cannot escape responsibility by pointing out that she never raised it.

Three practical habits follow. First, when a policy seems to collide with something personal about an applicant, stop and ask rather than assume. Second, route questions about exceptions to someone trained to handle them, rather than letting a busy district manager decide by phone. Third, write down the reason for a hiring decision at the time it is made, in terms that could be read aloud later. Abercrombie's own records, showing the religious assumption behind the decision, were what decided the case.

References

Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Definitions, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2025).

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015).

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023).