On June 1, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in EEOC v. Abercrombie that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was not required to prove that a Muslim job applicant had requested an accommodation to wear a headscarf in order to show she was denied employment because of religion under Title VII. Evidence that the employer refused to hire her because it assumed she would request such an accommodation was sufficient to show religion was a motivating factor.
Fact of the Case:
An applicant interviewed for a sales position wearing a headscarf. The employer had a company "Look" policy that prohibited certain items, including caps, and the applicant and interviewer did not discuss whether an accommodation was needed for religious reasons.
The interviewer rated the applicant as qualified but consulted a district manager after the interview to ask whether the headscarf would violate the Look policy. The district manager concluded it would, and the applicant was not offered the job. The EEOC sued on her behalf and a jury returned a verdict for the applicant, but a federal appellate court later required proof that the employer had actual knowledge of a need for a religious accommodation.
The Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision. The Court held that if an employer refuses to hire an applicant because it believes she will require a religious accommodation, and she would actually need that accommodation, Title VII is violated; proof of actual knowledge is not required to establish motive.
The Court explained that motive and knowledge are separate concepts and rejected the argument that a neutral policy can never constitute intentional religious discrimination. The decision emphasized that Title VII can impose affirmative obligations on employers to accommodate religious practices unless doing so would cause undue hardship.
Lessons Learned:
Employers should evaluate hiring decisions for whether an unstated belief about an applicant’s likely need for a religious accommodation influenced the outcome, because such motive can give rise to liability under Title VII unless the employer can show undue hardship in accommodating the practice.
For related commentary and case summaries, see Employment law roundup: EEOC v. Abercrombie, holiday party liability, and Cardenas v. Fanaian. For additional case summaries on employment and workers’ compensation matters, see Employment and Workers' Compensation Case Summaries.
The Court left unresolved whether an employer must at least suspect that a practice is religious before taking an adverse action, a question noted in a separate opinion that could be addressed in future cases. If you need to discuss coverage implications with an agent, you can talk to an agent.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can an employer refuse to hire because of a dress code?
An employer may enforce a neutral dress code but must consider whether refusing to accommodate a religious practice motivated the hiring decision and whether a requested accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Does an applicant have to request a religious accommodation to make a claim?
No, the Supreme Court held that an employer’s refusal based on the belief that an applicant will need an accommodation can support a discrimination claim even if the applicant did not request accommodation.
What should an applicant do if they believe they were denied for religious reasons?
An applicant should document the facts of the interview and decision and consider contacting the appropriate enforcement agency or a qualified advisor for guidance on next steps.
Can an employer avoid liability by showing undue hardship?
Yes, an employer can assert undue hardship as a defense if accommodating the religious practice would impose significant difficulty or expense.