Abercrombie & Fitch faced a lawsuit for religious discrimination after rejecting a job applicant who wore a hijab

Student Marquis:
In 2015, Abercrombie & Fitch faced a lawsuit for religious discrimination after rejecting a job applicant who wore a hijab, a headscarf worn by some Muslim women. Abercrombie & Fitch had a “look policy” that prohibited employees from wearing any headwear, but the applicant was not informed of this policy before her interview. This case highlighted the tension between a company’s freedom to dictate its employees’ appearance and the regulations to prevent employment discrimination.

In the United States, companies have a relatively free market system that allows them to set their hiring policies, including specific aesthetic requirements for employees. However, Title VII regulations concerning employment discrimination prohibit companies from discriminating against job applicants or employees based on their religion, race, sex, or other protected characteristics.

In this case, Abercrombie & Fitch’s “look policy” collided with Title VII regulations, resulting in religious discrimination. While the company had the freedom to create a specific aesthetic for its employees, this freedom was not absolute and was limited by anti-discrimination laws. The state’s regulatory control was crucial in preventing employment discrimination and ensuring that companies adhere to Title VII regulations.

From a virtue ethics perspective, Abercrombie & Fitch’s actions were unethical. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the individual or organization and emphasizes the importance of moral virtues, such as honesty, fairness, and compassion. Abercrombie & Fitch’s decision to reject the job applicant because of her hijab did not align with these virtues. By prioritizing its “look policy” over a job applicant’s religious beliefs, the company showed a lack of empathy and respect for individuals’ differences.

However, business activity and hiring regulations can have positive effects. Employment regulations prevent discrimination and ensure that individuals are judged based on their qualifications, not their appearance or other irrelevant factors. By promoting fairness and equal opportunity, these regulations contribute to society’s overall well-being.

The Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuit highlights the importance of balancing a company’s freedom to set its hiring policies with regulations that prevent employment discrimination. While companies can dictate their employees’ appearance, they must do so within the bounds of anti-discrimination laws. From a virtue ethics perspective, companies must prioritize virtues such as compassion, empathy, and respect for individuals’ differences when making hiring decisions. Ultimately, a balance between freedom and regulation is necessary to promote fairness, equal opportunity, and the well-being of society.

Student Jerrid:
Analysis on Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuit

In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a position with Abercrombie & Fitch in Oklahoma but was denied the position due to the head scarf she wore during the interview. The company had a no caps policy and when the interviewer brought this to his or her district managers attention, Samantha was not hired due to the company policy on dress code. Although it was not proven that the company did not hire her because of her religious practices or beliefs, the company was unwilling to accommodate an exception to the policy because of her religious standing. This was exemplified as employment discrimination. Employment discrimination is a type of discrimination that is referred to prejudicial treatment of people during the hiring process, promotions, and termination decisions (Fieser, 2015). Sammatha Elauf filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and consequently, the EEOC sued Abercrombie on Sammatha’s behalf (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015). Within the United States, Businesses and companies are able to establish their own dress codes, standards, and job descriptions and requirements within the scope of what job is needing to be accomplished. On the other hand, allowing employers to hire individuals based on their looks may result in too much focus on one’s appearance and not their academic, career, or personal accomplishments (Zakrzewski, 2005). In Abercrombie & Fitch’s case, there seems to be a grey line as models are being hired to model a specific look the company wants to portray to its customers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was intended to protect employees from discrimination based on their race, color, gender, religion, or national origin but was not intended for to protect individuals based on appearance or attractiveness (Zakrzewski, 2005). This makes it difficult to determine whether it is discrimination or specifically a company’s direction they’re taking in regard to beauty and fashion design. On the other hand, courts have generally found it acceptable for employers to mandate and enforce specific dress codes within the workplace (Zakrzewski, 2005). Determining whether or not hiring an employee was malicious or not doesn’t seem to matter in Sammatha’s case, however. The courts had reasonable suspicion that the head scarf was for religious reasons and that was enough for the courts to hold them liable for discrimination (Wall Street Journal, 2015). Ultimately when allegations arise, it is up to the courts to determine whether discrimination took place whether intentional or unintentional.

My analysis on the case of Samantha Elauf focuses primarily on the idea of Abercrombie & Fitch’s system they had in place prior to the lawsuit and how the economic system favors more attractive individuals within the workplace in general. Samantha’s case was bound to happen at one point or another whether it was herself or somebody else and it’s a good thing that it did happen. The case highlighted the need for additional insight on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the need for quality over judgement of looks. Attractive people are generally seen as more intelligent, likeable, honest, and sensitive than their less attractive counterparts (Zakrzewski, 2005). Abercrombie may have been limiting the hiring process to those who are eligible with attractiveness to create a brand or appearance that shows attractiveness and prestigious quality; this may have been done arguably through some kind of profit motive that the company may have been trying to accomplish. Although this may be true in some cases, judging a book by its cover so to speak, ignores the attributes of the employee or applicant; because discrimination against appearance can be just as harmful as the other traits described in Title VII, it should also be prohibited. As a result, Abercrombie & Fitch adjusted their look policy and revamped their hiring process through other means that didn’t involve attractiveness (Wall Street Journal, 2015). Businesses have a social responsibility to hire the right candidate for the position, regardless of their background or appearance and should be based off of their skills, attributes, and other traits the pertain to the job at hand. Utilizing Kant’s Deontology and categorical imperative, if all employers did this, it could result in an underqualified workforce and many individuals would have hurt feelings for not being hired due to their attractiveness. The categorical imperative was inspired by the “golden rule” which means to treat others how you would want to be treated (Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Although the golden rule is a good thought, not everyone has the same moral compass and ultimately, it’s up to the courts to decide when an allegation is filed.

Answer preview to Abercrombie & Fitch faced a lawsuit for religious discrimination after rejecting a job applicant who wore a hijab

APA

490 words