EEOC V. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

While civil liberties help people to avoid government using too much of their power and control people’s lives, civil rights use the help of government to protect them from discrimination. Overall, comparead to civil liberties, civil rights issues are quite straight forward. However, controversy still rounded-up if people’s race or religous get involed in the decision making process in which employing people. One typical example is EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The case happened in 2013, when Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was 18 then, got denied for the sales staff position in Abercrombie & Fitch Stores. The reason for rejection was because Elauf was wearing her scarf, which interfering with the store’s “Look Policy”, even when she scored high enough for the job. She then complained to the Equal Employment Oportunity Commission. The EEOP then sued Abercrombie on Elauf’s behalf.

The court ruled eight-to-one, with Justice Antonia Scalia delivering majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia said there was not much to think when he heard about the case. He said Abercrombie clearly did not hire Elauf because of her accomodating her religious practice. The justices believed religion should not be involved when deciding who to hire. The only time it might be condidered is when hiring people who is practicing their religion would make the company to have “undue harship”. On the other hand, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent. He wrote that, “that he understood the Civil Rights Act to prohibit only intentional discrimination, not neutral policies like the Abercrombie dress code that happen to interfere with some religious