海角大神

[Updated at 6:15 p.m.: This story has been updated to include a statement from a spokeswoman from Abercrombie & Fitch.]

Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch lost at the US Supreme Court on Monday in a case filed by a Muslim teenager who was turned down for a job because she wore a religious headscarf.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the nation鈥檚 highest court said that the company had an obligation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to offer the job applicant a religious accommodation, even though she never asked for one.

The decision puts American employers on notice: 鈥淎n employer may not make a job applicant鈥檚 religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.鈥�

Abercrombie officials had said they decided not to hire the teen, Samantha Elauf, because her black headscarf clashed with the company鈥檚 strict dress code against wearing black clothing and head coverings. They added that the teen never informed the company that she desired a religious accommodation. 聽

Rejecting those rationales, the high court said that a company engages in intentional discrimination when it acts in part with the motive to avoid providing a religious accommodation.

A neutral policy barring all employees from wearing headscarves does not exempt a company from providing a religious accommodation allowing some employees to wear headscarves for religious purposes, the court said.

鈥淭itle VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices 鈥� that they be treated no worse than other practices,鈥� Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the seven-page majority opinion.

鈥淩ather, it gives them favored treatment, affirmatively obligating employers not to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual ... because of such individual鈥檚 religious observance and practice,鈥� Justice Scalia wrote.

鈥淭itle VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation,鈥� he said.

The majority justices also concluded that the anti-discrimination statute did not impose a requirement that the company know how its policies might burden religious practices. Instead, the law looks to the would-be employer鈥檚 motives in deciding not to hire someone, the court said.

鈥淎n employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive,鈥� Scalia said.

鈥淐onversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed,鈥� he said.

The ruling marks a significant defeat for Abercrombie. In issuing its decision the high court reversed a decision by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the company.
A company spokeswoman, Carlene Benz, said Monday鈥檚 Supreme Court 鈥渄id not determine that Abercrombie and Fitch discriminated against Ms. Elauf.鈥�
She added: 鈥淲e will determine our next steps in the litigation.鈥�
The high court remanded the case to the Tenth Circuit 鈥渇or further consideration consistent with this opinion.鈥�

Justice Samuel Alito issued an opinion concurring in the court鈥檚 judgment. But he objected to the majority鈥檚 conclusion that the law does not require an employer鈥檚 knowledge of a burdened religious practice.

鈥淪uppose the interviewer thought Elauf was wearing the scarf for a secular reason,鈥� Justice Alito wrote.

鈥淚f [the anti-discrimination law] does not impose a knowledge requirement, Abercrombie would still be liable,鈥� he said.

鈥淭he statutory text does not compel such a strange result,鈥� he said.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued the lone dissent. He said Abercrombie鈥檚 enforcement of a neutral policy prohibiting all employees from wearing headscarves in its stores did not amount to intentional discrimination.聽

In refusing to create an exception to its policy, the company 鈥渄id not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices,鈥� he said.

He noted that the effects of the Abercrombie policy fell more harshly on those who wear headscarves for religious reasons. But, he said, that was merely a disparate impact, not intentional discrimination.

鈥淓lauf received the same treatment from Abercrombie as any other applicant who appeared unable to comply with the company鈥檚 Look Policy,鈥� he said.

The high court鈥檚 decision stems from a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Elauf鈥檚 behalf.

In 2008, Elauf, then 17, applied for a sales associate position at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Okla. She was interviewed for a position but was not offered a job. Later, she learned from a friend, she wasn鈥檛 offered a job because of her headscarf.

That鈥檚 when she went to the EEOC.

A federal judge sided with Elauf, and a jury awarded her聽 $20,000 in compensatory damages.

On appeal, a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court鈥檚 decision and ruled, instead, for Abercrombie.

The appeals court said that the company could not be held liable for failing to provide a religious accommodation when it had never been given actual notice by the job applicant of a need for a religious accommodation.

In reversing the appeals court, the Supreme Court said there was nothing in the statute requiring an employer to have actual knowledge of a conflict between a religious practice and a work rule.

The 10th Circuit鈥檚 approach 鈥渁sks us to add words to the law to produce what is thought to be a desirable result,鈥� Scalia said. 鈥淭hat is Congress鈥檚 province. We construe Title VII鈥檚 silence as exactly that: silence.鈥�

Scalia added that the law鈥檚 disparate treatment provision 鈥減rohibits actions taken with the motive of avoiding the need for accommodating a religious practice.鈥�

鈥淎 request for accommodation, or the employer鈥檚 certainty that the practice exists, may make it easier to infer motive,鈥� Scalia said, 鈥渂ut it is not a necessary condition of liability.鈥�

Since the lawsuit, Abercrombie has changed its hiring policy and settled similar cases.

The case was EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. (14-86).