Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Vs. Abercrombie

In “Working it Out” by Diana Eck, she writes about religious oppression in the workplace. The examples she gives on the many ways people have been fired, or the ways in which people's faiths have been compromised, reiterates that the amendment that states freedom of religion in the United States, is

Recognized for good-looking, all-American, and typically white male and female clothing models, Abercrombie & Fitch has develop into a special type of model of late-a model of asserted employment discrimination (Stephanie 2005). The clothing idol lately cleared up two private class actions and a civil action law suits by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") by consenting to compensate more than $40 million to African American, Hispanic, and Asian plaintiffs who claimed that Abercrombie discriminated against them (Stephanie 2005); Abercrombie in addition entered into a agreement with the EEOC recognized as a Consent Decree. In Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie, et al., West v. Abercrombie, et al., and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the plaintiffs disputed that they were either restricted to low visibility, back-of-the-store kind jobs or laid off and fired on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

The United States is one of the most culturally and religiously diverse countries in the world. The founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that its people would have the ability to practice their religion with no threat of persecution. In order to accomplish the goal of religious freedom and continue to ensure that all people of any religion would be free to practice their religion, the United States passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits an employer from discriminating based on the religious views of its employees. As the citizens of the United States spend a large amount of time in their places of employment, religious practices that these employees feel are necessary for the true observance of their religion must be accommodated by the employers. This law contends that in cases where the accommodation of religious practices of its employees does not create undue hardships, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees to practices the beliefs of their religion. As the demographics of the United States continues to change with more religiously diverse people immigrating to the country, employers are coming under more pressure to ensure they are taking all possible precautions to accommodate the religious practices of its employees. These precautions are important as the once an employee has established a bona fide complaint of religious discrimination, the burden of proof then falls on the employer to prove they

In the article Religious-Discrimination Claims on the Rise by Melanie Trottman, it is stated that “the EEOC received 3,811 religion-based complaints in fiscal 2012, the second-highest level ever and just below the record 4,151 in 2011” (Trottman, 2013, p. 1). In another article Study: Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise by Mike Ward lists similar number of religion-based complaints. The article by Trottman mentions that the EEOC has filed religious-discrimination lawsuits against companies in the fast-food, hair-salon, aviation, hotel, retail, medical and health-services industries. A recent case that the article mentions is about Muslim woman who worked at Abercrombie and was fired by the manager because her hijab violated

Firstly, one of the main facts of this case is the fact that the company refused to hire a covered woman due to her religious practices and beliefs. According to the New York Times website, Mrs. Elauf felt, as she states it in Liptak’s article, discriminated and “disrespected because of her religious beliefs” (Liptak, 2015). She explains how the company action results in a religious discrimination which is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Samantha also declares that the denial of her being hired is a result of an unequal treatment against her due to her religious beliefs although she is an American citizen. All Samantha Elauf tried to do was get a job in a company where she is used to be a customer as she enjoys fashion and thought she would receive the same treatment another American uncovered woman would receive as they are both American citizens thus should receive equal treatment no matter what the professional situations are. Yet, she was refused a job she could have obtained in

The ability for religious people to exercise their religion in opinion and practice has been a sacred right held up since the beginning of the United States. What happens when one’s religious practices conflicts with public values? This question was integral to the Supreme Court and its rulings in the cases of Bob Jones University v. United States and Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. In Bob Jones, the university’s tax exempt status was revoked because the university’s religious beliefs were contrary to the public values of racial equality. In Lukumi Babalu, the religious beliefs of the Santeria Church in Florida about animal sacrifices were in conflict with the public values of the community. Bob Jones University lost their religious

This case emphasizes the importance of the right to freedom of religion, as disallowing an individual to participate in either a citizenship ceremony, or court proceedings solely based on their religious garments is not only discrimination but prevents justice from taking its

Despite the reasonable intent, Abercrombie and Fitch crossed a line when they refused to allow some leeway when it was for a religious cause, much like Trans World Airlines in the TWA v. Hardison case. Trans World Airlines fired Hardison after he refused coming into work on Saturday due to his religious beliefs. He sued TWA and won, claiming his religious beliefs were being sabotaged by unjust work hours. These cases are alike in the way that the employers declined to accommodate to an employee's religious needs, excusing their actions by saying the person in question didn’t follow company

It appears that on September 28, 2017 the EEOC sues Home Depot for Disability Discrimination. The EEOC brought the suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination in employment, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case (EEOC v. The Home Depot / Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 17-cv-06990) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman. The EEOC is seeking full make-whole relief, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and non-monetary measures to correct Home Depot's practices going forward. "Our

Religious difference has been a question not just for theological schools and religious institutions but, increasingly for some businesses and corporations, offices and factories. In the past ten years the equal employment opportunity commission, which considers workplace complaints that may violate the civil rights act, has reported a 31 percent rise in complaints of religious discrimination in the workplace.

Recently, there have been multiple situations in which privately owned companies and small businesses have been in court, the defendants in civil suits for discrimination based on their religious beliefs. This paper will address four main topics; are these companies? religious rights protected by legislature? Is a company entitled to be religious and to provide or deny services based on their religion? At what point does the organization?s religion override legislature and vice versa. Finally, how does an ethical issue affect the business, the performance of the business, and the stakeholders of the business?

Freedom of religion has been a right guaranteed to individuals in society. However, it is ultimately just an idea put in place that is disregarded as something insignificant. The workplaces of many people choose to deny employees the right to express their religion freely, for fear it may leave a bad image for the company. It is apparent that freedom of religion is not a strong right as many people may have originally thought it was. The limits of this right have been tested for decades and continue to be an issue for people today. Freedom of religion may go on to exist as a right in society, but when investigating deeper into this privilege, it is evident that it is merely an idea taken for granted.

Under the title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination. Discrimination of basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. If a profit corporation have religious beliefs they will be able to argue they have the right to side-step Title VII and, for example, hire only those who sign a “statement of faith” or share the same religious

Religious freedom has been a staple of the American doctrine since the Bill of Rights. Since then, religious freedom has been challenged non-stop. From the Supreme Court’s rulings that have shaped what religious freedoms mean, which include the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the legalization of same-sex marriage; to obstacles that Muslims face. Religious freedom has been and continuous to be a center point in American politics.

The First Amendment of The Constitution is acknowledged to be the guarantor of freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of religious practice. In broad terms, the First Amendment is conspicuous as to what it represents. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court was compelled to analyze several cases that have challenged the Freedom of Religion clause, found within the First Amendment, due to the scope in which they have been presented. Furthermore, the analyzing of cases that challenge the Freedom of Religion clause pushed the Supreme Court towards a more complex issue of allowing freedom of religion without an overriding government interest. Despite the fact that most of the cases we’re going to analyze ruled in favor of an overriding