WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court strengthened civil rights protections Monday for employees and job applicants who need special treatment in the workplace because of their religious beliefs.
The justices sided with a Muslim woman who did not get hired after she showed up to a job interview with clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a black headscarf.
The headscarf, or hijab, violated the company's strict dress code, since changed, for employees who work in its retail stores.
Employers generally have to accommodate job applicants and employees with religious needs if the employer at least has an idea that such accommodation is necessary, Justice Antonin Scalia said in his opinion for the court.
Job applicant Samantha Elauf did not tell her interviewer she was Muslim. But Scalia said that Abercrombie "at least suspected" that Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons. "That is enough," Scalia said in an opinion for seven justices.
Federal civil rights law gives religious practices "favored treatment" that forbids employers from firing or not hiring people based on their observance of religion, Scalia said. The federal civil rights law known as Title VII requires employers to make accommodations for employees' religious beliefs in most instances. Elauf's case turned on how employers are supposed to know when someone has a religious need to be accommodated.
The decision does not, by itself, resolve her case. Instead, it will return to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which earlier ruled against her.
"While the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit decision, it did not determine that A&F discriminated against Ms. Elauf. We will determine our next steps in the litigation," company spokeswoman Carlene Benz said in an email.i think it's safe to say there was some profiling and discriminative practice going on. A&F is an upscale store and that generally includes people with a nose problem they tend to look down them at people perceived to be of lower status or other religions they don't approve of and their politicians demonize so yeah IMO their was an breach of the law.
sending something back to lower courts that have already formed an opinion seems to be avoiding the very thing that describes the job of the scotus kind of a shirking of their duty. it will be interesting how this unfolds since A&F customers are not likely to boycott because they refused to hire a Muslim. funny how those people feel their right to religious freedom is trampled while the trample on others freedoms. what price freedom????
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/9c.asp
