PHI445 Week 5 Discussion, Discrimination Laws:
Advantages and Disadvantages
In the Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuit a practicing Muslim, Samantha Elauf wore a
headscarf to an interview. The headscarf is part of her religious practice, but during
the interview she never explained it nor asked for a special accommodation to the
company’s “look policy” that included no hats. She qualified to be hired, but
Abercrombie & Fitch deemed that the headscarf violated their look policy and as a
result she did not obtain the position. As a result, Samantha filed a complaint with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and sued the company and
received a summary judgment that was reversed by the Tenth Circuit. They claimed
that Samantha was obligated to inform Abercrombie that her religious practice
needed an accommodation to their job requirements of the “look policy”. “According
to the Tenth Circuit, “an employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to
accommodate a religious practice until the job applicant provides the employer with
actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation” (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015,
para 3). The Supreme Court reversed and the “court found that a job applicant need
only demonstrate that a prospective employer’s desire to avoid providing a religious
accommodation was a motivating factor in its decision not to hire, not that the
employer actually knew of the need for an accommodation” (Collins & Sokolowski,
2015, para 1). Title VII does not contain any limitation that imposes a knowledge
requirement; rather it states “prohibits certain motives” (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015).
In the U.S., we have a relatively free market system, in which businesses are governed
by the laws of supply and demand, not constrained by interference from the
government (Feiser, 2015). They are given the freedom to do as they please with their
business.
Abercrombie& Fitch as an entity played a role in the problem that led to the lawsuit
under examination. The interviewer believed that Samantha wore the headscarf due
to her faith, and they avoided accommodation Title VII was violated because they has
an “unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed” and no
employer is able to take religious practice a factor for employment (Collins&
Sokolowski, 2015, para 4). Had they asked and not simply look the other way, this
could have been avoided and the necessary accommodations could have been made. I
believe the ethical theory that applies to this case is Deontology. Deontology is a
moral principal that is inspired from the Golden Rule-to treat others the way you want
to be treated. It believes we are to “treat people as an end, and never merely as a
means to an end…we should treat all people as beings that have value in and of
themselves, and not treat anyone as a mere instrument for our own advantage”
(Feiser, 2015, section 1.3). During the interview with Samantha, the interviewer could
have just asked her if she would be able to comply with the requirements of the
position – specifically the “look policy”. That could have led to the confirmation of the
religious practice and an ultimate determination could have been made on whether to
Advantages and Disadvantages
In the Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuit a practicing Muslim, Samantha Elauf wore a
headscarf to an interview. The headscarf is part of her religious practice, but during
the interview she never explained it nor asked for a special accommodation to the
company’s “look policy” that included no hats. She qualified to be hired, but
Abercrombie & Fitch deemed that the headscarf violated their look policy and as a
result she did not obtain the position. As a result, Samantha filed a complaint with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and sued the company and
received a summary judgment that was reversed by the Tenth Circuit. They claimed
that Samantha was obligated to inform Abercrombie that her religious practice
needed an accommodation to their job requirements of the “look policy”. “According
to the Tenth Circuit, “an employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to
accommodate a religious practice until the job applicant provides the employer with
actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation” (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015,
para 3). The Supreme Court reversed and the “court found that a job applicant need
only demonstrate that a prospective employer’s desire to avoid providing a religious
accommodation was a motivating factor in its decision not to hire, not that the
employer actually knew of the need for an accommodation” (Collins & Sokolowski,
2015, para 1). Title VII does not contain any limitation that imposes a knowledge
requirement; rather it states “prohibits certain motives” (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015).
In the U.S., we have a relatively free market system, in which businesses are governed
by the laws of supply and demand, not constrained by interference from the
government (Feiser, 2015). They are given the freedom to do as they please with their
business.
Abercrombie& Fitch as an entity played a role in the problem that led to the lawsuit
under examination. The interviewer believed that Samantha wore the headscarf due
to her faith, and they avoided accommodation Title VII was violated because they has
an “unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed” and no
employer is able to take religious practice a factor for employment (Collins&
Sokolowski, 2015, para 4). Had they asked and not simply look the other way, this
could have been avoided and the necessary accommodations could have been made. I
believe the ethical theory that applies to this case is Deontology. Deontology is a
moral principal that is inspired from the Golden Rule-to treat others the way you want
to be treated. It believes we are to “treat people as an end, and never merely as a
means to an end…we should treat all people as beings that have value in and of
themselves, and not treat anyone as a mere instrument for our own advantage”
(Feiser, 2015, section 1.3). During the interview with Samantha, the interviewer could
have just asked her if she would be able to comply with the requirements of the
position – specifically the “look policy”. That could have led to the confirmation of the
religious practice and an ultimate determination could have been made on whether to
