Abercrombie & Fitch currently finds itself in a Supreme Court battle over the rejection of a Muslim applicant due to her head scarf. The manager of a Tulsa, Oklahoma store denied then-17-year-old Samantha Elauf’s application because her head scarf did not fit the Abercrombie’s “look policy” that requires employees to wear clothing resembling what the store sells. Employers are prohibited by federal law to discriminate in employment and are required to compromise with employee’s religious practices unless it overly strains the business.
Many of the Supreme Court justices have been quick to note that Elauf was never informed of the company’s dress policy. In turn, the lawyer for Abercrombie & Fitch stated that Elauf never informed the store of her religion and what it requires, a question that federal law prohibits employers from asking, and that the store should not be held responsible for Elauf not mentioning it.
One thing is for certain in this story: Both sides missed open opportunities to address the head scarf and its religious connotations during the interview process. Samantha Elauf could have quite easily informed the manager of the Tulsa store that she is Muslim and wears the head scarf for religious reasons, a resolution that would have avoided the entire judicial process.
On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought up the point that, while employers cannot directly ask about an applicant’s religion, there are ways in which interviewers can ask whether or not an applicant would have an objection to certain policies. Justice Sotomayor used the example of facial hair, which men of certain religions are required to grow. She argued that an interviewer could simply ask if a no facial hair policy would be an issue for an applicant, at which point the applicant would be able to address the religious requirement of the facial hair and eliminate any confusion.
This is not the first time Abercrombie & Fitch has been in the headlines for negative reasons. Back in 2006, former CEO Mike Jeffries gave an interview with Salon and said that Abercrombie & Fitch, “goes after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”
Jeffries also spoke of competitors H&M and American Eagle in the same interview, saying, “those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.” The statements brought about mass criticism of Jeffries and Abercrombie & Fitch for their target demographic and how they market their clothing to them. Jeffries stepped down as CEO in December 2014.
Both sides clearly missed opportunities to address the issue before taking it to court. The outcome of the case will certainly be a major talking point in regards to the religious rights in the workplace and the interview process. Past criticisms of former CEO Mike Jeffries makes it difficult to give Abercrombie & Fitch the benefit of the doubt in this case.
While there may be no direct way for disgruntled customers to change policies at Abercrombie & Fitch, they can show their disapproval of the company by not shopping there. Losing customers and profit over the matter will force the Abercrombie & Fitch to address the policies in question and, hopefully, force change within the company that customers can agree with.