EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch

choi

In chronological order
(1) Jess Bravin, Employers Watch High Court Case on Religious Garb. Wall Street Journal, Feb 23, 2015.
www.wsj.com/articles/employers-w ... ous-garb-1424651444

Note: hijab
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab


(2) Jess Bravin, Justices Hear About Abercrombie Case Involving Religious Garb. WSJ, Feb 26, 2015
www.wsj.com/articles/abercrombie ... f-policy-1424896620
("Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn, representing the EEOC, told the court the case was important because it provided an opportunity to protect job applicants, whose unfamiliarity with the workplace makes them less able than employees to recognize discrimination.  While employees 'are in a position to go back and forth with their employer and understand the work rules, applicants are at a serious informational disadvantage,' he said.  'What is unusual is that the applicant found out why she was not hired,” Mr. Gershengorn said. “Most of the time, the person just never finds out that no accommodation was made, that the employer assumed the accommodation would be needed' and rejected her for that reason")

Note:
(a) United States Supreme Court on Feb 25 heard the oral argument in a case decided by the Tenth Circuit.
(b) Miriam R Nemetz, US Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Mayer Brown, Oct 3, 2014
www.mayerbrown.com/pt/publicatio ... x?publication=10684
("The Tenth Circuit’s decision is in tension with decisions of the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which have adopted the EEOC’s position that the element of notice is established where the employer has actual knowledge of an employee or applicant’s religious practice even if there is no an explicit request for an accommodation")

(c) EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc (CA10 2014) 731 F.3d 1106
www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-5110.pdf
(i) CA10 = Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
(ii) Please read only section I, A and B about facts of the case. The last paragraph of subsection C of Section I is as follows. "The parties went to trial on damages. The jury awarded the EEOC $20,000 in compensatory damages. The EEOC’s request for prospective injunctive relief
was denied. This timely appeal followed."