Contemporary Clothing's "Look" Collides With Title VII

13 October 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

There is more than a little bit of irony when a clothing company with a target market of teens and young adults has a fashion dilemma. However, a national retailer has just such a dilemma arising from a potential religious accommodation dispute that has just taken a front and center position in the national legal landscape.

All the way back in 2008, a young woman applied to the company to be a “model” (the employer’s term for salesperson) at its Tulsa, Oklahoma store. She arrived at her interview appropriately attired but, in keeping with her Muslim upbringing, wore a traditional hijab. During her interview, the candidate did not mention her religion or that she wore the hijab for religious purposes. Likewise, the interviewer did not mention the hijab or ask about her religion. The company did not hire the job seeker because she lacked the “Look” as set forth in its “Look Policy” which did not include a hijab.

The candidate filed a charge with the EEOC and the EEOC ultimately filed a law suit claiming the employer failed to accommodate the candidate’s religious beliefs and expressions, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company responded contending that the candidate never told the interviewer she adhered to Muslim beliefs, which included wearing the hijab, nor that she required an accommodation. It also claimed that even had the candidate made such statements, wearing the hijab would have imposed an undue hardship. The District Court sided with the EEOC, but on appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and in a jurisdictional peculiarity, all of Yellowstone National Park) disagreed and overturned the $20,000 judgment. Exactly one year ago, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the EEOC did not satisfy the requirements of Title VII because the candidate failed to notify the clothing company that she wore the hijab due to her religious belief and that she needed an accommodation. The appellate court viewed Title VII as requiring individualized religious beliefs and that wearing a hijab did not communicate the applicant’s personal religious belief.

So why are we addressing this year old ruling now? Just a handful of days ago, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision. What is now at stake nationwide is whether the mere wearing of religious garb such as a hijab or yarmulke, or an adornment such as a crucifix, is a sufficient expression of a sincerely held personal religious belief to put an employer on notice of the need for an accommodation or an expression of cultural identity for which no accommodation is required. The decision of the Supreme Court will almost certainly have wider implications with respect to other statutes which require accommodation such as the Americans with Disability Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. We eagerly await the decision of the Supreme Court.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights