The Corner

Why We Should All Be Glad a Muslim Woman Just Won Her Religious Accommodation Case at the Supreme Court

While pop culture and corporate America haven’t been kind to religious freedom, the Supreme Court certainly has. In cases ranging from Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School v. EEOC, to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and Holt v. Hobbs, the Court has — sometimes unanimously — reaffirmed constitutional and statutory protections for religious freedom. Today’s opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch continues the trend. 

In Abercrombie, the Court dealt with a claim by a Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, that the store refused to hire her because she wore a hijab, a head covering that apparently violated the company’s so-called “Look Policy,” which banned “caps” but was interpreted in this case to ban the hijab. The store knew that Elauf wore the hijab because of her faith, yet declined to hire her specifically because they knew she’d try to wear the hijab at work. 

The EEOC sued Abercrombie, and the trial court ruled for Elauf and awarded her $20,000 in damages. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however, holding that an employer cannot be liable for refusing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant provides the employer with “actual knowledge” of the need for an accommodation. Justice Scalia, writing for an 8-1 majority, disagreed. What mattered was employer motive, not employer knowledge. To prevail, Scalia wrote, “an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.”

This is the right result. The statute — Title VII — prohibits an employer from refusing to hire to an employee “because of” that employee’s religion. The statute, on its face, does not contain a knowledge requirement. Thus — as Scalia notes — if an employer makes an adverse job determination because they merely suspect that an employee may request an accommodation, it violates the statute: “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

Elauf’s victory is a victory for people of all faiths (by the way, for a nation allegedly plagued with institutional Islamophobia, Muslim litigants certainly do well at the Supreme Court) and particularly critical at a time when major corporations are often leading the charge against religious free exercise. Title VII still means what it says, and people of faith cannot be shut out of the marketplace.

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most Popular


An Idea for Student Loans: Get Rid of Them

Here is a three-part plan for something practical the federal government could do to relieve college-loan debt. Step 1: The federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans. Step 2: It should prohibit educational lending by federally regulated financial institutions ... Read More

A Reckoning Is in Store for Democrats

The crisis of the Democrats is becoming more evident each week. Those of us who have been loudly predicting for years that the Russian-collusion argument would be exposed as a defamatory farce, and that the authors of it would eventually pay for it, are bemused at the fallback position of the Trump-haters: that ... Read More
White House


Some of you will be familiar with a lefty, partisan Democratic organization called MoveOn, formerly MoveOn.Org. It was founded during an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s shenanigans (which were not, Democratic mythology notwithstanding, strictly sexual in nature) and argued that it was time for the ... Read More

Why ‘Stop Sanders’?

'Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?” T. S. Eliot asked. “Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” And where is the intelligence we have lost in cleverness? Cleverness is the plague of our political classes, an influenza of the intellect. The consultants are always trying to ... Read More