On February the 25th ,2015, the supreme court remanded the EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc case, as the Supreme Court of the United States website states it. In fact, the case opposed the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of Samantha Elauf, against a company named Abercrombie and Fitch Stores. In fact, Mrs. Elauf was denied a job due to religious practices as the A&F company considered that her look goes against the company policies.
The Title vii Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that employers are hindered to discrimination of employees based on race, sex, religion, and national origins. The E.E.O.C used the title vii civil rights act as their number one argument. The E.E.O.C argued that Abercrombie and Fitch refused to hire Elauf based on her religious practices. The prosecution also stated that accommodation could have easily been made for the position to be taken by Elauf. The E.E.O.C used Abercrombie and Fitch used their "Look Policy" as their defense. The Look Policy notifies applicants and employees that retail personal is not allowed to wear caps as a salesperson. The company also thought that Elauf should have told the interviewer before hand about her Islamic beliefs. Abercrombie stated that if this step would have been taken; her headscarf would not have been an issue in the
When the employee asked why her religious beliefs to wear a hijab was different from another employees belief to wear a cross were difference, the response she received was that it would ruin the image the company is trying to portray. Never in the conversation did the employers mention how wearing the hijab could maybe place herself or others in a dangerous situation working with equipment, instead they insisted that
Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F), an American retailer that concentrates on upscale casual wear for young consumers, which was founded in Manhattan, New York City in June 4, 1892 by two young minds of David T. Abercrombie and Ezra Fitch. Beginning with a rough journey of selling sporting outfits and excursion goods such as fishing and hunting equipment, A&F had to file bankruptcy in 1977. Soon thereafter, the company was revived after Jake Oshman, owner of Oshman Sporting Goods, bought A&F in 1978. A&F was relaunched as a mail-retailer company specializing in hunting wear and novelty items, but was bought by The Limited ten years after its revival. The gradual shift to focusing on apparels for young consumers began when A&F was a subsidiary of Limited Brands, and since then, A&F has grown to become one of the largest apparel firms in the United States. In 1998, A&F launched Abercrombie Kids, targeting consumers from age 7-14, which further increases its revenue. In 1999 to early 2000s, A&F’s sales skyrocketed as it hit its zenith, by portraying A&F clothing as the “coolest thing” through billboard-winning song that compliments A&F in the lyrics, as well as other advertisements. Furthermore, A&F launched a subsidiary called Hollister to tackle similar age group of target audience but with lower income. This expansion to dominate the market of teenagers through consideration of other demographic factor, namely income, was exceptional for A&F’s revenue. Presently, A&F focused on
Recognized for good-looking, all-American, and typically white male and female clothing models, Abercrombie & Fitch has develop into a special type of model of late-a model of asserted employment discrimination (Stephanie 2005). The clothing idol lately cleared up two private class actions and a civil action law suits by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") by consenting to compensate more than $40 million to African American, Hispanic, and Asian plaintiffs who claimed that Abercrombie discriminated against them (Stephanie 2005); Abercrombie in addition entered into a agreement with the EEOC recognized as a Consent Decree. In Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie, et al., West v. Abercrombie, et al., and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the plaintiffs disputed that they were either restricted to low visibility, back-of-the-store kind jobs or laid off and fired on the basis of their race or ethnicity.
In the article Religious-Discrimination Claims on the Rise by Melanie Trottman, it is stated that “the EEOC received 3,811 religion-based complaints in fiscal 2012, the second-highest level ever and just below the record 4,151 in 2011” (Trottman, 2013, p. 1). In another article Study: Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise by Mike Ward lists similar number of religion-based complaints. The article by Trottman mentions that the EEOC has filed religious-discrimination lawsuits against companies in the fast-food, hair-salon, aviation, hotel, retail, medical and health-services industries. A recent case that the article mentions is about Muslim woman who worked at Abercrombie and was fired by the manager because her hijab violated
The religious discrimination lawsuits filed in federal court with the EEOC indicate that there were employees who believed their religious rights were not being protected. For example, Omari v. Waste Gas Fabricating Co. was a 2005 9/11 backlash case. Omari, a Muslim from Algeria, filed a claim with the EEOC for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Omari claimed that he was repeatedly called “Osama, terrorist, cave dweller, camel driver,” and was accused of making bombs and questioned as to whether or not he knew how to drive a plane into a building. Omari rejected the accusations and tried to explain that he was not an Arab, but the comments did
Despite the reasonable intent, Abercrombie and Fitch crossed a line when they refused to allow some leeway when it was for a religious cause, much like Trans World Airlines in the TWA v. Hardison case. Trans World Airlines fired Hardison after he refused coming into work on Saturday due to his religious beliefs. He sued TWA and won, claiming his religious beliefs were being sabotaged by unjust work hours. These cases are alike in the way that the employers declined to accommodate to an employee's religious needs, excusing their actions by saying the person in question didn’t follow company
Businesses have been the heart of economic growth since the beginning of the United States. Not only has businesses been at the center of this nation but also freedom of religion as well. In this case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., its how the business (Abercrombie & Fitch), denies Samantha Elauf the job at that store because she wore a head scarf because she was a practicing Muslim.
The company Abercrombie and Fitch has been sued countless times because of the rules the government has imposed on hiring and firing people. Abercrombie is trying to target attractive looking people to their line of cloths. During an interview Salon Jeffries the CEO of Abercrombie stated… his business was built around sex appeal… “He believes that good-looking people attract other good-looking people”… If a clothing line
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion. In fact, the law “requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee when that employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observance conflict with a work requirement unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship to the employer” (Fowler-Hermes & Gierbolini, 2014, p. 34).
As a practicing Muslim Elauf wore her hijab to the interview. During the interview neither Elauf or the interviewer Heather Cooke, the assistant store manager, mentioned the hijab or anything else related to Elauf’s religion. Upon completion of the interview it was determined by Cooke that Elauf was a good candidate for employment. Even though she was deemed fit for the position, Cooke was worried that Elauf’s hijab would violate the company’s Look Policy. Abercrombie’s Look Policy includes a strict “no caps” guideline. Cooke’s concern led her to ask both her store manager and district manager. Cooke then alluded to her superiors that she believed Elauf wore a hijab for religious reasons. It was at this point that Cooke was instructed not to hire Elauf because her hijab violated their policy. The EEOC, on behalf of Elauf, brought a suit against Abercrombie & Fitch Inc., for their alleged violation of Title VII. While the district court found in favour of Elauf, awarding her $20,000 in damages, the Tenth Circuit court reversed this decision. They did so claiming that for an employer to be held liable the applicant must request or discuss the accommodation that they are seeking to provide the actual knowledge of said
In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie & Fitch, a teenager Samantha Elauf filed against Abercrombie and Fitch’s company after she was denied employment at a store for “failing to accommodate” because she wore a hijab for religious practice. The incident first began in 2008 after Samantha’s interview with an employer at a store in Oklahoma. After she was informed of the reason why she wasn't hired, she filed a court case against the company for religious discrimination. In the District Court of Oklahoma, the court decided that Abercrombie’s “look policy” stating that employees must abide by dress code rules was perfectly reasonable. They agreed with the employer that Samantha must take off her hijab for work regardless
According to Keyton, organizational culture is "the set of artifacts, values, and assumptions that emerges from the interactions of organizational members" (Keyton, 2014, p. 550). Over the past few years, past and potential employees of the clothing brand Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) have taken to the media to explain the negative organizational culture that exists within the company. The management values and company policies that create this “image-obsessed culture” have led to multiple human rights lawsuits, which has damaged the reputation of Abercrombie & Fitch globally (Benson, 2013).
Abercrombie and Fitch, founded in 1892, is an American clothing company that targets young customers. It is headquartered in New Albany, Ohio, and has over 250 locations in the United States and is expanding internationally. Abercrombie and Fitch is a reputable apparel and lifestyle brand. However, in the past few years, the company’s image has been battered by accusations of discrimination toward minority groups. In this report, I will describe and analyze Abercrombie and Fitch’s current CSR policies and activities, and provide recommendations to improve the company’s brand image. I will focus on the four main social responsibilities that A&F highlights, which are environmental sustainability, diversity and human rights in the employment and its independent contractors, customer care, and the community.