Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/topgsnkq/myessaydesk.com/wp-content/themes/enfold/framework/php/function-set-avia-frontend.php on line 637


RESPOND PARAGRAPH 1 using referenceIn 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie and Fitch and in the interview, she wore a Hijab. This made the interviewer worried that because of her religion and wearing the Hijab, it would violate their look policy that says no hats are allowed to be worn while working. The interviewer asked higher up management, and their decision was that since the applicant didn’t put her religion on the application and that she would need an accommodation, they would not have to hire her because she will violate the look policy. Companies in America can choose who they want to hire and who they don’t, but that does not give them the right to discriminate against religion, race, or age. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie on Elauf’s behalf to correct the wrong and stand up for Elauf’s freedom of religion. At first the case was denied because the Tenth circuit said it was the applicant’s duty to inform the employer of their religion and that they would need an accommodation and Abercrombie should not be responsible. The Supreme court reversed this decision because their decision to not hire her was based on her religion which isn’t allowed.I personally think Abercrombie & Fitch as a corporation and the economic system in the USA have a role in the problem that led to the lawsuit. Abercrombie is responsible because they wanted to protect a certain image that their company portrays, which didn’t include employees wearing Hijabs. They should have thought about how a person’s religion is sacred and they cannot discriminate someone for believing in something which allows them to wear certain things. The economic system plays a role because the system is supposed to help stop all discrimination in the workforce, but cases are still happening every day.Some of the advantages for businesses and hiring regulations are companies are allowed to hire who they want and who they don’t want. They can hire certain people on their life aspects and their job aspects and what applicant will fit in with their company more. The disadvantages for businesses and hiring regulations would be that all employers have to follow the EEOC Title V11 strictly and are not allowed to discriminate against someone’s religion. There are many beliefs in the world and it is a right to believe in a certain religion without being treated different. I think all the ethical theories need to be followed, but virtue ethics is one Abercrombie needs to work on. They need to care about doing the right thing and how their actions affect a person and the world around them.Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. (2015, June 12).Supreme Court sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch hijab case (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.[Blog post]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/06/articles/discrimination/supreme-court-sides-with-eeoc-in-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. 575 U. S. 1 (2015). Retrieved fromhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Fieser, J. (2015).Introduction to business ethics[Electronic version]. Retrieved fromhttps://content.ashford.edu/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.RESPOND PARAGRAPH 2 using referenceUnited States economic system allows companies many freedoms. Organizations are at liberty to hire and fire people as they see fit, create rules and regulations for their employees to follow, and promote and demote employees within the company, among many others. In the case of Abercrombie & Fitch, an American fashion business, it was business as usual when Samantha Elauf showed up to her job interview as a sales associate wearing a hijab, a headscarf. (Collins, Sokolowski, 2015). This was not unusual for a practicing Muslim woman. Abercrombie & Fitch had a “look policy” which prohibited all employees from wearing headgear. (Collins, Sokolowski, 2015). After the interview, she learned that she was not hired because her hijab would violate the company’s “look” policy, which led to Samantha filing a lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII states that, “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire… any individual… because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…” (EEOC Website). In the case of Abercrombie, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the company indeed violate the Civil Rights Act because they failed to accommodate Samantha Elauf’s religious needs, and refused to hire her based on religious attire. (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 2015).One of the biggest problems in this case that stands out to me, is the amount of government interjection in private businesses. One has to wonder, at which point will a mixed economy become socialistic? The problem lies in perception. Certain actions could be perceived as religious discrimination, but may not be meant to be that way. As in the case of Abercrombie & Fitch, the intent to not hire Samantha Elauf was not malicious, but was perceived as a form of employment discrimination. (Fieser, 2015). Geller, P. brings up a controversial point, as to why would a devout Muslim even want to apply for a job at a place like Abercrombie & Fitch; she refers to their ads as soft porn. (Geller, 2015). The outcome of this case has both positive and negative effects on our economic structure. For one, the Supreme Court clarified some of the language in Title VII, stating that organizations may not fail to hire an applicant simply because they do not want to accommodate for their religious practices. (Olson, 2015). I believe that greed played a major role in this lawsuit, which makes this case unethical if looking at it from a virtuous standpoint.  I see people suing companies for slipping and falling on their floors, suing home owners after they break into a home and injure themselves. (Sowinski, 2010). Now, this case is an example of people suing companies for not being hired for a job. Where do we draw the line? I don’t think we would even need all these laws if people just did what is right by one another.ReferencesCollins, 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-with-eeoc-in-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case/Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch. 575 U. S. 1 (2015). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdfFieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/Geller, P. (2015, June 2). Why would a devout Muslim want to work at Abercrombie and Fitch? Retrieved from http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/02/why-would-a-devout-muslim-want-to-work-at-abercrombie-and-fitch/Olson, W. (2015, June 1). EEOC v. Abercrombie: Headscarfs and judicial modesty. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/blog/eeoc-v-abercrombie-headscarfs-judicial-modestySowinski, G. (2010, February 10). Injured burglar files lawsuit: Neighbors go to court after break-in led to injury. Lima News, The (OH).U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 15% Discount! Use Code "FIRST15"

"Do you have an upcoming essay or assignment due?

Get any topic done in as little as 6 hours

If yes Order Similar Paper

All of our assignments are originally produced, unique, and free of plagiarism.