Abercrombie & Fitch Case

Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Company 15 F.3d 1375 (6th Cir 1994) case supports our recommendation of litigation because Cooper could not establish prima facie case of discrimination, that Oak reasonably accommodated her religious beliefs. The district court concluded that Oak could not have relieved Cooper all Saturday work responsibility without suffering undue hardship, i.e., the need to hire another employee or a resulting loss of production.

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

The root cause in the Abercrombie and Fitch case was the company’s practice was to focus their recruiting and hiring of a sales persons around their image, which was around the mantra of “an all American Classic look” and they shied away from individuals that did not fit that mold. Due to this behavior, the company was hit with a lawsuit in 2003 that alleged they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by placing a targeted focus on their recruiting and hiring that essentially excluded or limited its minority and female workforce population (Wikipedia, 2017).

Bed, Bath and Beyond (BBBY) currently has $400 million more in cash than they need for ongoing growth and operations requirements. While the company is financially sound analysts and investors worry about the company’s capital structure decisions. Investors do not want to see that much cash on the books and worry that the current capital structure is not the most effective for the future. They prefer that BBBY change their capital structure by paying out excess cash and issuing debt. This could allow BBBY to improve their return on equity and raise earnings per share. Given the low interest rates available it seems like the perfect time for BBBY to add debt to its capital structure. Until now they

Additionally, as expressed by Rebecca Ratner, Hsieh’s commitment to merging the workplace with social lives could present risk to the company in the form of unprofessional or inappropriate conduct that is not addressed properly.

You have raised some great points as to J.C. encounter of unlawful religious discrimination. As you said J.C. tried to compromise with his employer by packing or wearing his dreads in a neat and professional matter. But as a result his employer refused which resulted in J.C. losing his job. I agree with your analysis that the company's actions toward J.C. is violation of Title VII. However I also believe that it is a violation of his first amendment right. As a citizen of this so called great land, we are allowed to practice our religion and face no form of discrimination. This case not only describes a violation against Title VII but also the first amendment

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.

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

Founded by J.W. Nordstrom in 1880 as a small shoe store, by 1995 Nordstrom had become a giant retailer with net earnings of $203 million and over 35,000 employees. Nordstrom remains a family operation to date. The idea of the ‘Nordstrom Way’ - with strong commitment to the firm, emphasis on proactive service, no external hiring, and a decentralized management structure (e.g., Nordstrom has no CEO) - is central to their employee relations, and is seen as central to their success. Average compensation within the company is above industry average.

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

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that all employers must make practical accommodation to hold spiritual beliefs of their employee absent unwarranted hardship, therefore it is not considered discrimination (EEOC.org). By offering her a position within the classification department I feel follows Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she was able to wear her khimar without the potential for injury while mingling with

Goodyear, around the late 1980s was developing a tire that would set them apart from the competition. Unfortunately they were stuck in a time when replacing tires was not high on peoples list of pleasantries, which will be explained in greater detail. Goodyear developed what they called the Aquatred tire which was supposed to give greater traction during wet weather and a superior quality that would have the same traction after much use as some tires did when they were brand new. However, they faced a few problems along the way. The price for this new tire was going to be quite expensive. The industry at this time was not looking for a high performance tire so much, but rather something with a guarantee and

Firstly, one of the main facts of this case is the fact that the company refused to hire a covered woman due to her religious practices and beliefs. According to the New York Times website, Mrs. Elauf felt, as she states it in Liptak’s article, discriminated and “disrespected because of her religious beliefs” (Liptak, 2015). She explains how the company action results in a religious discrimination which is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Samantha also declares that the denial of her being hired is a result of an unequal treatment against her due to her religious beliefs although she is an American citizen. All Samantha Elauf tried to do was get a job in a company where she is used to be a customer as she enjoys fashion and thought she would receive the same treatment another American uncovered woman would receive as they are both American citizens thus should receive equal treatment no matter what the professional situations are. Yet, she was refused a job she could have obtained in

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).

Due to Sonia’s religious beliefs management should understand and accommodate Sonia’s personal choice for attire. Because Sonia’s attire does not impose undue hardship on the organization’s legitimate business interests, there is no reason not to allow Sonia’s attire in the work place. In order to prove undue hardship an employer must be able to prove that any accommodation would require more than ordinary business costs, diminish efficiency in other jobs, impair workplace safety, infringe on the rights and benefits of other employees, cause other coworkers to carry the burden of the accommodated employee’s hazardous or burdensome work, or conflict with other laws or regulations (Gross, 2012, para 10).