## Facts

- Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, applied in 2008 for a sales position at an Abercrombie store in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
- Elauf wore a hijab to her interview and customarily wore it daily.
- Abercrombie maintained a “Look Policy” that prohibited certain attire, including “caps,” and was applied to bar headwear.
- The interviewer was impressed with Elauf but suspected the headscarf was worn for religious reasons and consulted a manager.
- The manager stated that headwear was not permitted and directed that Elauf not be hired.
- The EEOC sued under Title VII on Elauf’s behalf; the district court found liability and a jury awarded damages.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the employer could be liable for failure to accommodate only if the applicant gave the employer actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation.
- The Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII disparate-treatment liability for refusing to hire based on a religious practice requires proof that the employer had actual knowledge the applicant needed a religious accommodation.
2. Whether an employer violates Title VII by declining to hire an applicant when the employer’s motive is to avoid accommodating a suspected religious practice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that, to prevail on a Title VII disparate-treatment claim, an applicant must show only that the need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the hiring decision, not that the employer had actual knowledge of the need.
- The Court rejected an “actual knowledge” requirement as inconsistent with Title VII’s text.
- The Court stated that an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice—confirmed or suspected—a factor in an employment decision.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment liability focuses on the employer’s motive (“because of … religion”), not on a separate notice or knowledge element.
- Under Title VII’s motivating-factor standard, an employer acts unlawfully if it refuses to hire in order to avoid accommodating a religious observance or practice.
- A plaintiff need not show the applicant expressly requested an accommodation if the employer’s decision was motivated by a desire to avoid a religious practice.
- Title VII’s definition of “religion” (including observance and practice) supports treating failure to accommodate religious practice as actionable disparate treatment when the adverse action is taken because of the practice.

## Conclusion

Title VII prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an applicant to avoid accommodating a religious practice, and liability does not depend on the employer’s actual knowledge of the need for accommodation so long as the religious practice was a motivating factor in the decision.


EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015)