Supreme Court of United States- In the instant case, where a Muslim woman was denied a job because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with the respondent’s employee dress policy, the Court with a majority of 8:1 reversed the Tenth Circuit decision awarding the respondent summary judgment on the ground that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation. Scalia J., delivering the opinion of the Court explained in detail the contours of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The Court held that the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward i.e an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions and for the applicability of disparate treatment provision an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
The facts of the present case state, Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf consistent with her religious obligations, applied for a position in the respondent company. She was interviewed and acquired the rating that qualified her to be hired. However, she was denied the job due to the fact that the headscarf she wore might go against the Look Policy that governed the employee’s dress. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the respondent on Elauf’s behalf claiming that its refusal to hire her violated Title VII. While, the respondent’s claimed that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment without first showing that an employer has “actual knowledge” of the applicant’s need for an accommodation as in this case. Hence, the main contention was whether the prohibition under Title VII applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation
The Court further observed that motive and knowledge are separate concepts and an employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. But, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation violates Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575
