This article is an opinion piece and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Iron Warrior, EngSoc, or the University of Waterloo.
I do not need to emphasize the difficulty of getting hired; we are all in the co-op program here. But let me tell you, finding a minimum wage job for the summer is often no easier. I wanted to work the summer after grade 11, and started applying early before university students were out of school. After checking back twice with all the retailers I had applied to, I was told they were done hiring. I had not received a single call. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not being racist, but considering I did not look like the rest of the employees, I was pretty sure the only reason I had not even been contacted was because of my headscarf, although I never had any proof.
Which is why I would like to say props to this girl for doing what I never would have dreamed of.
On June 1, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie and Fitch because the headscarf (or hijab) she wears for religious purposes violates the company’s “look policy.” In an 8-1 ruling, they turned down the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and sent the case back to the lower courts. This ruling suggests Elauf will prevail in the end.
Elauf applied in 2008, at the age of 17, and admitted she was nervous to be showing up to the interview in a headscarf. On the topic of the company’s dress code, which is meant to promote its “East Coast collegiate style”, the assistant manager told her not to wear too much makeup, black clothing or nail polish. Her headscarf was never mentioned. After the interview, however, the district manager said that Elauf should not be hired because employees are not allowed to wear head gear.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination due to religious beliefs and practices. Abercrombie insisted that had Elauf requested special accommodation this would have been granted, and said they were unaware that her headscarf was a religious symbol. However, Title VII contains no knowledge requirement. “An applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in his opinion.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting vote. He said that this was not a matter of religious discrimination; rather, the company has a certain look policy, which includes the ban of head gear, making their rejection religion neutral. “Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf,” he wrote. “In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices.”
The company is reviewing its policies to allow its employees to dress in a more individualistic way, and does not take “attractiveness” into account in the hiring process.
This ruling was applauded by Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs, who all face discrimination on the basis of religion wear. “We welcome this historic ruling in defence of religious freedom at a time when the American Muslim community is facing increased levels of Islamophobia,” said the Council on American Islamic Relations’s National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
Leave a Reply