Media Advisory: Supreme Court to hear religious discrimination case Employers can’t feign ignorance to justify religious discrimination
Ryan Colby 202-349-7219 email@example.com
Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the religious discrimination case concerning Abercrombie & Fitch’s refusing to offer a job to a qualified Muslim teen applicant because she wore a religious headscarf. Samantha Elauf is a Muslim girl who was 17 years old when she applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch. In December, Becket filed a brief debunking Abercrombie’s claim that she was not protected by longstanding civil rights laws which prohibit an employer from refusing to hire someone merely because they are religious. Abercrombie claimed they prohibit headwear and never knew she was religious because she never explained in her job interview that she was wearing the headscarf because of her faith. However, Abercrombie’s internal records showed that they knew she wore a headscarf for religious reasons and had previously made headwear exceptions for employees who wore religious head cover such as yarmulkes.
Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel of Becket
Oral Argument for EEOC v. Abercrombie
February 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street Northeast
Washington, DC 20543
Samantha Elauf and Becket attorneys will be available for comment after the hearing. For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202.349.7224.
Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Its recent cases include three major Supreme Court victories: the landmark ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the 9-0 rulings in Holt v. Hobbs and Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the latter of which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”