Supreme Court wrestles with accommodating religious faith on the job

Print More
Samantha Elauf outside of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (Feb. 25, 2015). Photo courtesy of Emily Hardman, Becket Fund

Samantha Elauf outside of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (Feb. 25, 2015). Photo courtesy of Emily Hardman, Becket Fund

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) A fashionista teen wears her headscarf to an Abercrombie & Fitch interview and doesn't get the job. Now her religious freedom case is the Supreme Court's to decide.

  • If we lived in a sensible world, this young woman would not be wasting her time and everyone’s patience in what amounts to a bullying exercise and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if she wished to determine the hiring practices of a retail establishment, would have to start one herself.

  • Earold D Gunter

    If we lived in a sensible world there would be no religion, and this young woman would have no need to waste her time and everyone’s patience as no one would believe they had to wear anything, or do anything just to please the concept of a god.

  • No, if we lived in a sensible world, people who fancy themselves devoted to truth through observation would have a more circumscribed sense of what they do know and what they do not know.

  • Pingback: Supreme Court wrestles with accommodating religious faith on the job | Jews & Muslims()

  • samuel Johnston

    She had chosen to apply for a sales position, dealing directly with the customers.
    As such she would be a public representative of the company. I think the company should have the digression to set dress codes for those employees. On the other hand, public policy is set by Congress, whether wise or no.

  • “an employer can’t deny employment based on an worker’s religious practice, unless accommodating it would prove terribly burdensome.”

    This is completely fair.
    She should never have been denied her job. Abercrombie and Fitch are being discriminatory and UNFAIR.

    Religious freedom requires everyone to be put up with everybody else’s religion – or non-religion – as the case may be. It is your bad, A&F.

  • Pingback: hijab stores – – Lastest Hijab Stores News | Cothing shop clothes for the Latest Fashions and Styles()

  • EricaH

    I agree. I hope she wins the case.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    How many times are the Christianists going to try to “project” their own bullying of the many Americans they hate and fear onto their intended victims? No one is fooled by that standard lie.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    It’s always someone else’s fault, according to Christianists.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Agreed. I wouldn’t have any problem having that young lady as a sales clerk.

  • Brien

    Wrong! Freedom means that we do NOT have to put up with anybody’s religion, especially since it is the religions which are discriminatory. Our democratic freedoms attempt to give equal treatment to all equally.
    Absolutely no consideration should be given at all to any religion.

  • Brien,

    Nobody is asking you to “put up” with religion.
    Your responsibility as an American citizen is to allow people their lawful right to practice their religion as long as it does not violate your rights.

    Looking at someone walking by in a Muslim scarf or seeing someone praying is not a violation of your rights.

    ONLY IF they try to force you to PARTICIPATE in religion that is different – that is when they cross the line and you can tell them to stick their religion where the moon don’t shine.

  • Cathy Wynn

    Bravo, Atheist Max
    Yet again, Amax proves that atheism can survive alongside religious people and that one does not need religion to know what is moral. It is funny that Christians say that “man needs God for morality”, while skipping over the fact that God is a man made thing itself. LOL.

  • Earold D Gunter

    People devoted to real truth welcome new observations through scientific discovery that leads them to new truths, not an abandonment of truth for the sake of subscribing to ancient beliefs that were never founded in reality.

  • Larry

    Aww the poor wittle multinational retail chain which pulls in billions of dollars a year is being picked on by a teenage girl. How tough for them. 😉

  • Amax proves group homes and asylums have personal computers and internet access.

  • You mean my business is successful and I have many outlets, therefore Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have a franchise to set my hiring practices. Got it.

  • CarrotCakeMan, the distinction between a private party and a state actor seems lost on you, characteristic of the very young who cannot distinguish between authority in domestic settings, markets, and the public square. The managers of Abercrombie & Twink outlets govern their stores. They cannot issue injunctions binding parties in geographic jurisdictions with hundreds of thousands of people in them.

  • Fran

    I can’t wait for the new world or cleansed earth from God which is ahead of us so that we won’t have to worry about any problems like this!

  • Larry

    I mean you are a hysterical nasty minded person pushing a ridiculous argument. If the people at A&F were sensible, we would not have this story.

  • Skip Reinert

    Places of worship are secular, places of work are not.

    And while I respect Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the language of Title VII does not explicitly require accommodating religious ‘practice’ specifically at the place of work. Rather it is “an unlawful employment practice … to discriminate against any individual .. because of such individual’s ..religion”.