Religious accommodation in hiring
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
In brief
The Court overturned the Tenth Circuit: an applicant need not prove an employer knew she needed a religious accommodation, but must show that the need motivated the hiring decision.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-1 · June 1, 2015 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- The EEOC challenged Abercrombie’s decision not to hire Samantha Elauf, a Muslim applicant who wore a headscarf.
- Who it affects
- For Title VII applicants claiming a decision was based on religion, the Court said they need not prove the employer knew an accommodation was needed; they must show that the need motivated the decision.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Tenth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back (reversed and remanded), deciding that Elauf had to show her need for a religious accommodation motivated the hiring decision—not that Abercrombie knew she needed one.
Title VII is the federal law that bars job decisions because of religion, including religious practice.
Question presented
Can an employer be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant based on a religious observance or practice if the employer did not have direct knowledge that a religious accommodation was required?
What the Court decided
Holding
To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision requires Elauf to show that Abercrombie (1) “fail[ed]... to hire” her (2) “because of ” (3) “[her] religion” (including a religious practice). 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). And its “because of” standard is understood to mean that the protected characteristic cannot be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision. §2000e–2(m). 731 F. 3d 1106, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said Title VII bars religion or a religious practice from being a motivating factor in a hiring decision. An applicant need not prove the employer knew an accommodation was needed, but must show that the need motivated the decision.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 7joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Alitowrote separately
- Dissenting · 1disagreed with the result
- Thomaswrote the dissent
From the opinions
“Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.””
What's next
The case returns to the Tenth Circuit to apply this standard; the Supreme Court did not decide whether Abercrombie violated Title VII.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Abercrombie
More questions
- Why did Justice Thomas disagree?
- He argued that applying a neutral policy alone is not intentional discrimination and would have left the Tenth Circuit’s decision in place.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.