Written by Don Byrd
The Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in the case of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (see the BJC’s page on this case here). I will have more reaction later today after the transcript of the questioning is made available. In the meantime, the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes reports the justices seemed skeptical of Abercrombie’s argument:
Several justices said there was no evidence that Elauf believed wearing a head scarf violated the company’s “Look Policy,” which said that the company promotes its East Coast collegiate or preppy image, and thus no reason to mention why she wore one.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. noted that an interviewee did not have to meet the company’s dress code during the initial meeting. He and other justices indicated that the interviewer had an obligation to explain the company’s policy and begin a dialogue with an applicant about whether he or she could comply, rather than simply deciding not to hire.
The Baptist Joint Committee issued a press release regarding the case earlier today offering support for the idea that employers have a duty to “avoid discrimination against prospective employees.” Check the blog later today and tomorrow for more analysis and coverage of the Supreme Court’s discussion today.
UPDATE 2/25: you can read the transcript of the oral argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie here. As Lyle Deniston notes in his recap at SCOTUSblog, the justices frequently expressed confusion as both sides had difficulty articulating the rule they wanted the Court to apply. In the end, unique elements of this case, including the fact that the prospective employer ultimately discovered why she was not hired, may tilt the outcome in her favor. What remains, however, is the rule the Court decides should govern job application situations like this to comply with Title VII.
