In this assignment, we highlight the application of the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, agency law, and judicial review of business practices. Specifically, we discuss the implications of applying "neutral" business policies that may be considered a violation of an applicant's constitutional rights. It is imperative that you consider Chapters 10 and 12 in order to properly answer the questions below. It is recommended your answers be between 150 - 250 words for each question. Of course, the word count indications are not set in stone, as it would be wonderful to read extended (quality) discussion points. Please respond to at least one classmates' post. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Facts) For clarification, Samantha Elauf is represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Abercrombie is a private employer. Law: Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: prohibits two categories of employment practices. It is unlawful for an employer: (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Facts) For clarification, Samantha Elauf is represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Abercrombie is a private employer. Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: prohibits two categories of employment practices. It is unlawful for an employer: (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship. The question presented is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of their need for an accommodation. Facts: Respondent Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., operates several lines of clothing stores, each with its own "style." Consistent with the image Facts: Respondent Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., operates several lines of clothing stores, each with its own "style." Consistent with the image Abercrombie seeks to project for each store, the company imposes a Look Policy that governs its employees' dress. The Look Policy prohibits "caps" -a term the Policy does not define-as too informal for Abercrombie's desired image. Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim who, consistent with her understanding of her religion's requirements, wears a headscarf. She applied for a position in an Abercrombie store, and was interviewed by Heather Cooke, the store's assistant manager. Using Abercrombie's ordinary system for evaluating applicants, Cooke gave Elauf a rating that qualified her to be hired; Cooke was concerned, however, that Elauf's headscarf would conflict with the store's Look Policy. Cooke sought the store manager's guidance to clarify whether the headscarf was a forbidden "cap." When this yielded no answer, Cooke turned to Randall Johnson, the district manager. Cooke informed Johnson that she believed Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith. Johnson told Cooke that Elauf's headscarf would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise, and directed Cooke not to hire Elauf. The EEOC sued Abercrombie on Elauf's behalf, claiming that its refusal to hire Elauf violated Title VII, and it won. You may access the full case here: httoe.thansunremecourt coloninions/1Andi interviewed by Heather Cooke, the store's assistant manager. Using Abercrombie's ordinary system for evaluating applicants, Cooke gave Elauf a rating that qualified her to be hired; Cooke was concerned, however, that Elauf's headscarf would conflict with the store's Look Policy. Cooke sought the store manager's guidance to clarify whether the headscarf was a forbidden "cap." When this yielded no answer, Cooke turned to Randall Johnson, the district manager. Cooke informed Johnson that she believed Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith. Johnson told Cooke that Elauf's headscarf would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise, and directed Cooke not to hire Elauf. The EEOC sued Abercrombie on Elauf 's behalf, claiming that its refusal to hire Elauf violated Title VII, and it won. You may access the full case here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/ 14-86_p86b.pdf (Links to an external site.) Questions: 1. Why should Abercrombie have to accommodate Elauf's religious practice if there may be a risk to its brand and marketing strategy in doing so? 2. Consider Chapter 10 and discuss why Abercrombie would be responsible for Cooke and Johnson's decisions