## Facts

- Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. maintained a “Look Policy” requiring a “classic East Coast collegiate style” and prohibiting “caps.”
- Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, applied at age 17 for a sales position at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
- Elauf wore a black headscarf to her interview.
- The assistant manager rated Elauf as a strong candidate and testified she would normally have hired her based on the interview scores.
- The assistant manager consulted management because she believed the headscarf might violate the Look Policy.
- A district manager concluded the headscarf would be treated as a prohibited “cap,” and Elauf was not hired.
- Before the hiring decision, Elauf did not explicitly tell Abercrombie that she wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not request an accommodation.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII permits liability for failure to accommodate a religious practice when the applicant did not inform the employer, before the hiring decision, that the practice was religious and conflicted with an employment requirement.
2. Whether an employer’s suspected or assumed awareness of a religious practice can substitute for applicant notice to trigger a duty to accommodate under Title VII.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the EEOC and held Abercrombie was entitled to summary judgment.
- The court ruled that a prima facie Title VII religious-accommodation claim requires the applicant to inform the employer of the religious nature of the practice and the need for an accommodation.
- Because Elauf did not provide such notice before the hiring decision, the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie case.
- The case was remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and enter judgment for Abercrombie.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Tenth Circuit’s Title VII religious-accommodation framework, a plaintiff must show: (1) a bona fide religious belief conflicting with an employment requirement; (2) the plaintiff informed the employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) an adverse employment action for noncompliance with the conflicting requirement.
- The employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate is triggered only after the employer is notified by the applicant or employee of the religious nature of the practice and the need for accommodation.
- Internal management speculation or assumptions about the religious basis of a practice do not satisfy the notice element as a matter of law.
- Where the absence of applicant notice is undisputed, summary judgment for the employer is appropriate.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that, without pre-decision notice from the applicant that a practice is religious and conflicts with a job requirement, Title VII does not impose a duty to accommodate, and the employer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 731 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2013)