Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
| Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 25, 2015 Decided June 1, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. |
| Docket no. | 14-86 |
| Citations | 575 U.S. 768 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2028; 192 L. Ed. 2d 35 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 798 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (N.D. Okla. 2011); reversed, 731 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 44 (2014). |
| Holding | |
| To prevail in a Title VII disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had knowledge of their need. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Alito (in judgment) |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | |
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. 768 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding a Muslim American woman, Samantha Elauf, who was refused a job at Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008 because she wore a headscarf, which conflicted with the company's dress code. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–1 in Elauf's favor on June 1, 2015.