海角大神

The US Supreme Court grappled on Wednesday with the issue of whether the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against a Muslim teen when it refused to hire her because her headscarf clashed with the company鈥檚 strict dress code.

Abercrombie rejected an application from Samantha Elauf, then 17, after concluding that her black headscarf would violate the company鈥檚 policy prohibiting employees from wearing caps and from wearing black clothing.

During the job interview, an assistant manager did not ask Ms. Elauf about her headscarf, but assumed Elauf was Muslim. For her part, Elauf did not raise the issue of the headscarf and she never asked if Abercrombie might offer a religious accommodation.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Abercrombie on Elauf鈥檚 behalf, charging religious discrimination. A federal judge ruled for the teen, but an appeals court panel sided with Abercrombie.

The appeals court said that Abercrombie could not be held liable for failing to provide a religious accommodation if the company had never been given explicit notice by the job applicant of a clash between workplace rules and a religious practice.

At issue before the high court is who has the burden of raising the issue of a potential religious accommodation, the employer or the employee/job applicant?

Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn told the justices it is up to the employer to discuss any potential religious issues and take action to resolve them.

He said Abercrombie could have announced that the company doesn鈥檛 allow salesclerks to wear headscarves. Then it would be up to the applicant to request a religious accommodation, he said. In that case, both parties would be on notice.

But Mr. Gershengorn said that once a company 鈥渦nderstands,鈥� 鈥渟uspects,鈥� or 鈥渃orrectly believes鈥� that a job applicant may need a religious accommodation from neutral work rules, that applicant must be offered an accommodation.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy questioned what level of certainty of a potential religious clash would trigger the need for accommodation.

鈥淵our position ... is that he must 鈥榰nderstand.鈥� You stay away from the word 鈥榢now,鈥� 鈥� Justice Kennedy said, noting that he found the position confusing.

鈥淲e think there is sufficient knowledge, notice, when somebody understands ... assumes that a practice is religious and then acts upon it, that that is sufficient,鈥� Gershengorn replied.

The deputy solicitor general added that if an employer had some doubt about a possible clash between workplace rules and a job applicant鈥檚 religious practices, there should be a dialogue between employer and the person over the issue.

No such dialogue took place in the Abercrombie-Elauf case.

Justice Scalia responded by repeating Abercrombie鈥檚 argument that it should be up to the applicant/employee to raise the issue of religious accommodation.

鈥淵ou could avoid those hard questions, whether it鈥檚 鈥榰nderstand,鈥� 鈥榖elieve,鈥� 鈥榮uspect,鈥� by adopting the rule the court of appeals adopted here,鈥� Scalia said. 鈥淚f you want to sue me for denying you a job for a religious reason, the burden is on you to say, 鈥業鈥檓 wearing a headscarf for a religious reason.鈥� 鈥�

Abercrombie鈥檚 lawyer, Shay Dvoretzky, said that the approach favored by the EEOC and the Obama administration would be 鈥渦nadministrable.鈥�

The government has not identified what level of certainty is required for a 鈥渂elief鈥� or 鈥渟uspicion鈥� that an individual might be religious and entitled to an accommodation, he said.

鈥淭he question before the court is, what level of knowledge does the employer have to have before the duty to accommodate is triggered,鈥� Mr. Dvoretzky said. 鈥淔or 40 years, the EEOC鈥檚 own guidance has put the burden to initiate the conversation on the employee because only the employee knows.鈥�

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pushed back. She said Elauf had no reason to think that the company would not accept her wearing a headscarf. Justice Ginsburg said that Abercrombie had not given her notice of the company鈥檚 dress code.

Dvoretzky said Elauf had asked a friend about the company and the dress requirements.

A possible turning point in the case came midway through Dvoretzky鈥檚 argument.

Justice Samuel Alito mentioned the company鈥檚 prohibition on employees wearing black. The justice asked if a job applicant arrived to the interview in a black blouse whether Abercrombie would refuse to hire that person on the assumption that she would wear black every day at work.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think Abercrombie needs to make that assumption about what the person will do later in order to make a judgment based on the person鈥檚 appearance at the interview,鈥� Dvoretzky said.

A few minutes later, Justice Alito expanded on his prior question. He wondered why, in Elauf鈥檚 case, she wasn鈥檛 hired.

鈥淭here would be no reason for not hiring [Elauf] unless you assumed that she was going to wear a scarf every day,鈥� Alito said. 鈥淛ust because she wore a scarf on that one day wouldn鈥檛 mean that she necessarily was going to wear it every day."

鈥淢aybe she鈥檚 just having a bad hair day,鈥� he suggested. 鈥淲ould you reject her for that? No.鈥�

Alito added: 鈥淭he reason that she was rejected was because you assumed she was going to do this every day, and the only reason why she would do it every day is because she had a religious reason.鈥�

Dvorestzky denied the suggestion that Abercrombie didn鈥檛 hire Elauf because she wore a religious headscarf.

鈥淎bercrombie might well not have hired anybody who walked in wearing any head cover,鈥� he said.

The case is EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. (14-86). A decision is expected by late June.