In this assignment, we highlight the application of the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and judicial review of laws/decisions to business practices. Specifically, we discuss the implications of applying neutral business policies that may be considered a violation of an applicants constitutional rights. In this assignment, you will read the facts for EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (below), and decide which party should prevail. If you decide the court should rule in favor of Samantha Elauf, you will side with the EEOC, and alternatively side with Abercrombie if you believe it applied a neutral business policy. Please post your discussion (300-500 words) electronically.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Facts) 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 his need for an accommodation. 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 capsa term the Policy does not defineas too informal for Abercrombies desired image. Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim who, consistent with her understanding of her religions requirements, wears a headscarf. She applied for a position in an Abercrombie store, and was interviewed by Heather Cooke, the stores assistant manager. Using Abercrombies 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 stores Look Policy. Cooke sought the store managers 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. Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 253: 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 individuals 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 individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.