Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 14–86. Argued February 25, 2015—Decided June 1, 2015 Respondent (Abercrombie) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The EEOC prevailed in the District Court, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, awarding Abercrombie summary judgment on the ground that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf
Several court decisions between 1964 and 1991 helped clarify courts interpretations of EEO laws such as Title VII.
GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER COMPANY Griggs was a landmark case, because the Supreme Court used it to define unfair discrimination. Lawyers sued the Duke Power Company on behalf of Wilie Griggs, an applicant for a job as a coal handler. The company required its coal handlers to be high school graduates. Griggs claimed this requirement was illegally discriminatory.He said it wasn t related to success on the job, and it resulted in more blacks than whites being rejected for these jobs. Griggs won the case. The Court s decision was unanimous. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Burger laid out three crucial guidelines affecting equal employment legislation.
* First, the Court ruled that the discrimination does not have to be overt to be illegal. In other words, the plaintiff does not have to show that the employer intentionallydiscriminated against the employee or applicant. Instead, the plaintiff just hasto show that discrimination took place.
* Second, the Court held that an employment practice (in this case, requiring the high school degree) must be job related if it has an unequal impact on members of a protected class. (For example, if arithmetic is not required to perform the job, don t test for arithmetic.)
* Third, Chief Justice Burger s opinion placed the burden of proof on the employer to show that the hiring practice is job related. Thus, the employer must showthat the employment practice (in this case, requiring a high school degree) isnecessary for satisfactory job performance if the practice discriminates againstmembers of a protected class.
Thank you for the invitation
I agree with your answer
thanks for the information
