The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.<\/p>\n
On an 8-1 vote in an important religious rights case, the court handed a victory to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that sued the company on behalf of Samantha Elauf. She was denied a sales job in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa when she was 17.<\/p>\n
The legal question before the court was whether Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.<\/p>\n
Monday’s ruling was the second decision by the high court during its current term in favor of a Muslim alleging discrimination. In January, the justices found that an Arkansas policy prohibiting inmates from having beards violated the religious rights of a prisoner who had wanted to grow one in accordance with his Muslim beliefs.<\/p>\n
The court has taken an expansive view of religious rights. Last year, it sided with a Christian-owned company that objected on religious grounds to providing health insurance coverage for certain contraceptives.<\/p>\n
Abercombie said in a statement that the case will continue, noting that the court had not determined that discrimination took place.<\/p>\n
The court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that Elauf needed only to show that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
\nReuters<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons. On an 8-1 vote in an important religious rights case, the court handed a victory to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1620,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rs_blank_template":"","rs_page_bg_color":"","slide_template_v7":"","tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[290,292],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-america","category-minority-rights"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1619","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1619"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1619\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1619"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.agencedh.org\/en\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}