CASE 2,EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2013) involved a question of
whether a clothing retailer violated Title VII when it refused to hire a Muslim
woman-applicant because she wore a head scarf in violation of its company dress code,
and whether the applicant gave proper notice of a religious accommodation. How did
the court rule?
a. That the employer did not violate Title VII becausethe employer did not have to
accommodate the wearing of the scarf because wearing the scarf involved a cultural
practice, not a practice required by the potential employee’s religion.
b. That the employer did not violate Title VII becausethe employer did not have to
accommodate the wearing of the scarf because the employer established that it did not
involve a sincerely held religious belief on the part of the potential employee.
c. That the employer did not violate Title VII becausethe employer did not have to
accommodate the wearing of the scarf because such accommodation would place an
undue hardship on the employer.
d. That the employer did not violate Title VII because the applicant failed to give proper
notice of a religious accommodation.
Answer:
Fact Pattern 6-1
Bruce had a disagreement with a new federal agency set up to give additional funds for
college to individuals with an aptitude for math. After a hearing, the agency determined
that Bruce had no aptitude for math and that he would not receive any funding. Bruce,
however, was not discouraged. He told his friend Laura, who just graduated from law
school, that he would simply appeal the decision to federal court, have the judge do a
fresh review, and provide additional information to the judge regarding his math
aptitude that the agency did not have. He feels certain that he will win at the federal
court level.