This case was about a Muslim girl (Samantha Elauf) trying to get a job at Abercrombie and Fitch. She wore a hijab to her interview like every other day. The look policy for Abercrombie bans caps and black clothes. She was not accepted to work in Abercrombie since she wore a hijab to her interview which lowered her scored. Abercrombie never asked if her headscarf was to practice her religion, but neither did Elauf mention it was for religious reasons. Abercrombie denied hiring her thinking she was muslim and that’s why she wore a hijab. One of reasons that this case was taken to court was to see if Abercrombie discriminated Samantha for wearing a headscarf, which violates the 14th amendmendment. Another big conflict that made this case be taken to court was that Abercrombie did not hire her because they thought she was muslim and that is why she wore a hijab, which violates the Title VII of the Civil Right Act Of 1964. What the Court wanted out of this case was to make sure that Abercrombie was not violating these rights from employees. The issue that was presented …show more content…
The Supreme Court made this decision because they said you can 't just refuse to give someone a job because they did not ask for accommodations because you think they are a certain religion. The Dissenting Reasoning they gave was that since Abercrombie had a certain policy on looks it was not such a intentional discrimination. Justice Clarence says that since they have a certain policy towards everyone then this isn 't really discriminating her or her religion so it does not fall into the VII Title of the Civil Right Act of 1964.What makes this court so important is that they are making judgements because of somebody 's religion. This is important since America is based of different cultures and religions so this should not even be thing. It is also important since it is an article, which should be respected and followed by