On June 28, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch. The lawsuit, filed in a Northern California federal court, claims that the company violated federal law when it fired a Muslim employee for wearing a hijab (religious head scarf).
According to the allegations, a 19-year-old Muslim woman was employed by Hollister (an Abercrombie & Fitch subsidiary) in San Mateo as an impact associate, primarily working in the stockroom. The employee was first asked to wear headscarves in Hollister brand colors, which she agreed to do.
Later, she was informed that her hijab violated Abercrombies look policy, an internal dress code. She was told she would be taken off -schedule?unless she removed her headscarf while at work. She refused to take off the hijab, was suspended and later terminated. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
Under federal and state law, employers must reasonably accommodate an employees sincere religious beliefs or practices. Employers are not required to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business, though employers should remember that undue hardship is a high burden and difficult for employers to meet.
Further, valid safety-related reasons, such as hard-hat requirements, may allow employers to prohibit the religious garment. Reasonable accommodation may include modification of work practices, job restructuring, job reassignment, or allowing time off in order to avoid a conflict with religious observances.
This lawsuit is the second the EEOC?filed against Abercrombie & Fitch in the Bay Area over the companys failure to accommodate workers who wear a hijab. In 2010, the EEOC filed a lawsuit concerning Abercrombies refusal to hire an applicant at the abercrombie kids store in Milpitas due to the applicants headscarf.
The companys all-American look policy has been a focus of prior EEOC? litigation, resulting in $40 million paid in 2005 to a class of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and women who were? either passed over for promotions or not hired at all.
Gail Cecchettini?Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Editor/Staff Counsel
According to the allegations, a 19-year-old Muslim woman was employed by Hollister (an Abercrombie & Fitch subsidiary) in San Mateo as an impact associate, primarily working in the stockroom. The employee was first asked to wear headscarves in Hollister brand colors, which she agreed to do.
Later, she was informed that her hijab violated Abercrombies look policy, an internal dress code. She was told she would be taken off -schedule?unless she removed her headscarf while at work. She refused to take off the hijab, was suspended and later terminated. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
Under federal and state law, employers must reasonably accommodate an employees sincere religious beliefs or practices. Employers are not required to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business, though employers should remember that undue hardship is a high burden and difficult for employers to meet.
Further, valid safety-related reasons, such as hard-hat requirements, may allow employers to prohibit the religious garment. Reasonable accommodation may include modification of work practices, job restructuring, job reassignment, or allowing time off in order to avoid a conflict with religious observances.
This lawsuit is the second the EEOC?filed against Abercrombie & Fitch in the Bay Area over the companys failure to accommodate workers who wear a hijab. In 2010, the EEOC filed a lawsuit concerning Abercrombies refusal to hire an applicant at the abercrombie kids store in Milpitas due to the applicants headscarf.
The companys all-American look policy has been a focus of prior EEOC? litigation, resulting in $40 million paid in 2005 to a class of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and women who were? either passed over for promotions or not hired at all.
Gail Cecchettini?Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Editor/Staff Counsel