The Supreme Court ruled today 8-1 today that the retail chain Abercrombie & Fitch violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when an assistant manager denied Samantha Elauf, an observant Muslim woman, a job because her headscarf violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy,” that prohibits “caps” from being worn on the sale floor.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie on Elauf’s behalf, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals contended that Abercrombie was not liable because Elauf did not provide actual notice of the need for a religious accommodation during her job interview.
Issue Three: How much more of this steaming excrement do we need to take? As far as we are concerned here at The Contemplative Thinker.com this as well as other cases it sure appears that the United States Supreme Court is getting ready to pass something that most Americans would find insulting.
It does not appear as though Ms. Samantha Elauf did anything, incurred costs, or especially knew what she was doing within the proceedings of the trial. She somehow got the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to do the actual suing of Abercrombie & Finch, which appeared to have lost during the initial verdict. So I ask anyone or everyone who will correspond to this article, when does any court judicial system stop hearing such cases?
Even the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ms. Elauf and found that Abercrombie & Finch was not liable insofar as the need for religious accommodation was NOT espoused during her interview with the company’s designated interviewer.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision. In a majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Here the employer at least suspected that the practice was a religious one; its refusal to hire was motivated by the desire to avoid accommodating that practice, and that is enough.” That indeed may be an assumption.
I and my gang absolutely love Justice Scalia! He appears to be the only Justice on the Court that uses a measure of good and common sense. However, are judge’s supposed to do that? This will remain our question throughout the social media aspect. Did Justice Scalia and/or other Justices’ of this court Usurp the law as it is written?
This case must now be filed into “Potential Wrong Action” because what the person wanted — do we even know what our observant Muslim woman wanted? It sure seems like our favorite SCOTUS judge assumed he did; or can anyone tell me about the notion whereby a person asks for one item and it is found that that one item is accommodated for — therefore, end of ruling — or since when does any court have the wherewithal to intermittently change the legal process?
We do want to make judicial notice here, given this particular case, that as one reader already responded: “From what I’ve seen at Abercrombie, and what I’ve heard about Islam, why is she working there in the first place?” Thank you.