The facts that pertain to this lawsuit in question are as follows: "In 2008, Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf as part of her religious practice, applied for a sales floor position at an Abercrombie retail store in Oklahoma. During Elauf's interview, to which she wore her headscarf, Elauf did not mention the fact that she was Muslim, discuss the headscarf, or indicate that she would need an accommodation from Abercrombie's \"Look Policy,\" which prohibited employees from wearing \"caps.\" While the interviewer gave Elauf a rating that qualified her for hire, she was concerned that Elauf's headscarf was a forbidden \"cap\" under the \"Look Policy.\" The interviewer then sought guidance from an Abercrombie district manager and told him that she believed Elauf wore the headscarf because of her faith. The district manager concluded that the headscarf violated Abercrombie's \"Look Policy\" and directed that Elauf not be hired." (Collins & Sokolowski, 2015) I believe that this case touches on ethical hiring practices of employees, freedom of religion, as well as potential discrimination based on how a person chooses to dress due to their religion. Due to our free-market system, a company can choose to hire or not hire anyone it wishes based upon qualifications as long as their choices do not violate equal opportunity laws or practice overt discrimination. The tricky part here, is that Abercrombie prides itself on it's own image as well as the "look" that the brand promotes to it's rather niche market. This "look" has been described as the following: "The new brand's aesthetic was best characterized by the Bruce Weber photographs featured on early Abercrombie posters: lots of blonde, toned men in unbuttoned flannel shirts and blonde, toned women in bathing suits. The company sought to recreate that image in its stores, hiring salespeople, called \"models,\" who were stylish, conventionally attractive and often scantily clad as the models in the photos." (Washington Post, 2015) It is within the company's rights to establish who it hires based on this "look", just as a company specializing in CrossFit equipment would only hire muscular and "in shape" looking models, or Victoria Secret would only hire attractive female models to show off their latest line of undergarments. The Title VII regulations concerning employee discrimination are: "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 253, as amended, prohibits two categories of employment practices. It is unlawful for an employer: \"(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014, Pages 2-3) I believe that the regulatory control of the state has the most led to the issues regarding this lawsuit. Abercrombie should be able to hire whomever they choose; if they chose not to hire her due to violation of their head covering policy so be it. After all, the person in charge of hiring her was not expressly informed of why she was wearing it, and in a court of law if they inferred that without being told or not is hearsay. "\"Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie before its hiring decision that she wore her head scarf, or 'hijab,' for religious reasons.\" (Breitbart, 2015) With that being said, I do feel that perhaps her filing of a lawsuit was due to motives for revenge on the company for simply choosing not to hire her over her headscarf; not because she was a Muslim. To me it appears that was inferred simply to find grounds for a suit to get back at a company who did not give her what she wanted. Does anyone else agree? An example of this kind of inferring was provided by Justice Alito: "Consider, for example, a job applicant who wears a hood and a shirt featuring the phrase \"May the Force Be With You\" to an interview, and is summarily rejected for bad sartorial judgment. Should the company be liable for discrimination if it had no clue that the applicant's clothing reflected a belief in Jediism? Probably not. This leads Justice Alito to the conclusion that an employer cannot be held liable for refusing to hire someone "unless the employer knows that the employee engages in the practice for a religious reason." (The Economist, 2015) By saying "unless the employer knows that the employee engages in the practice for a religious reason", I believe that Justice Alito exonerates Abercrombie from any blame in this case; as long as the person in charge of hiring is being truthful and was not specifically told the religious reasoning behind the headscarf. The hiring practices of Abercrombie are relatively well known, I know I am not the type of person who they would hire and I am smart enough to not try, is this right? Is that my common sense at play, or is that me just accepting the potential for discrimination based on looks and avoiding the fight with them over employment? With all this being said, it is 2016 and perhaps it is time for Abercrombie to relax it's hiring practices in line with the recent push of "political correctness" and the social media backlash that comes when someone feels "offended" and begins trending on any form of social media. If that is true, it means that Abercrombie has to have the corporate social responsibility to change their "look" and to open it's doors to employees of all races, genders, and religious beliefs even if those religious beliefs involve wearing head scarves. Would Abercrombie not hire a Sheik for the same reason? Abercrombie could learn from Kant's Deontology, specifically it's purpose "To do what is objectively right". (Zuniga y Postigo, 2015) To do what is objectively right here is to eliminate altogether, or at the very least, relax the physical appearance standards for Abercrombie employees to embrace more diversity and open up more opportunities for more types of people to work there. By applying this principle to it's hiring practices Abercrombie might very well have avoided this lawsuit and the negative press coverage that now surrounds them over this issue as well. Does anyone else agree? REFERENCES: Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. (2015, June 12). Supreme Court sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch hijab case [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/06/articles/discrimination/supreme-court-sides-witheeoc-in-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case/ Kaplan, S. (2015, June 2). The rise and fall of Abercrombie's 'look policy'. Retrieved May 31, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/02/the-rise-and-fall-ofabercrombies-look-policy/ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch. 575 U. S. 1 (2015). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf Religion in the workplace: Bias unveiled. (2015, June 3). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/religion-workplace Ziga y Postigo, G. (2015). The moral good in three traditional ethical theories [PowerPoint Slides]. The Abercrombie & Fitch case started in 2008 when Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company on behalf of Samantha Elauf. Samantha applied for a position in one of Abercrombie's retail store; despite the fact that she was a qualifying candidate, her headscarf, worn for her religious practice, was noted to be violating the company's Look Policy and resulted in letdown (Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. 2015). EEOC fought in court on behalf of Samantha - stating that the Abercrombie's action violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and that it was discrimination to Samantha's religious beliefs (Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. 2015). The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act states as followed \"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin\" (Tithe VII of the). On contrary, the Tenth Circuit rebutted with a fact that the company is not held responsible because Abercrombie was unaware that the headscarf was a part of religious practice and it is the responsibility of applicant to inform the company and ask for accommodation (Religion in the Workplace, 2015). Aside from different court decisions, in the article Why Would a Devout Muslim Want to Work at Abercrombie and Fitch, Pamela Geller rises a question in Samantha's purpose hidden beneath the case - wanting to \"force major American business to accommodate Islamic norms\" (Geller, P., 2015). This may be a subjective opinion and it also may be true; however, this works on both ways. Companies such as Abercrombie have capabilities to practice discrimination against religions while putting forth their internal \"policy.\" As The Wall Street Journal Legal Reporter, Ashby Jones, stated in one of the Wall Street Journals, \"even though Abercrombie & Fitch didn't know for sure that that's why she was wearing the headscarf, they had a strong suspicion that that's why she was wearing the headscarf. And that was enough, enough knowledge for them to have in order to hold them liable for discrimination\" (Wall Street Journal, 2015). Thus, it becomes evident that there are areas where companies can jeopardize regulations required per The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. From reading the resources provided for the discussion, I found underlying problematic operation in Abercrombie & Fitch. Especially, this case would have not reached a court if the company has made it clear to their employees and educated them with the Civil Rights Act. In this specific case, Abercrombie & Fitch failed in carrying out Deontology in their business operation. The Deontology can be achieved by \"doing only what can be universalized . . . to do what is objectively right\" (Ziga y Postigo, G., 2015). What is universal and governs \"right\" practices in our current system is the Civil Rights Act. Rather than seeking ends in themselves, putting heavy emphasis on its image and reputation, the company could very well have asked Samantha a question to see if they can find means of accommodation without simply \"denying . . . dignity\" (Ziga y Postigo, G., 2015). References Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. (2015, June 12). Supreme Court sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch hijab case [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/06/articles/discrimination/supremecourt-sides-with-eeoc-in-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case/ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). Retrieved June 01, 2016, from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm Religion in the workplace: Bias unveiled. (2015, June 3). The Economist. Retrieved fromhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/religionworkplace Geller, P. (2015, June 2). Why would a devout Muslim want to work at Abercrombie and Fitch? Retrieved fromhttp://www.breitbart.com/nationalsecurity/2015/06/02/why-would-a-devout-muslim-want-to-work-at-abercrombie-andfitch/ Wall Street Journal. (2015, June 3). Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie & Fitch in head scarf case [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/lhePN3HMHxI Ziga y Postigo, G. (2015). The moral good in three traditional ethical theories [PowerPoint Slides]