In a Case of Religious Dress, Justices Explore the Obligations of Employers

WASHINGTON — Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Wednesday warned that “this is going to sound like a joke,” and then posed an unusual question about four hypothetical job applicants. If a Sikh man wears a turban, a Hasidic man wears a hat, a Muslim woman wears a hijab and a Catholic nun wears a habit, must employers recognize that their garb connotes faith — or should they assume, Justice Alito asked, that it is “a fashion statement”?

The question arose in a vigorous Supreme Court argument that explored religious stereotypes, employment discrimination and the symbolism of the Muslim head scarf known as the hijab, all arising from a 2008 encounter at Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla.

Samantha Elauf, then 17, sought a job in a children’s clothing store owned by Abercrombie & Fitch. She wore a black head scarf but did not say why.

The company declined to hire her, saying her scarf clashed with the company’s dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.” The desired look, Justice Alito said, was that of “the mythical preppy.”

Ms. Elauf recalled the experience in a statement issued after the argument.

“When I applied for a position with Abercrombie Kids, I was a teenager who loved fashion,” she said. “I had worked in two other retail stores and was excited to work at the Abercrombie store. No one had ever told me that I could not wear a head scarf and sell clothing.”

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the basic inquiry should be easy.

“If the employer correctly infers, correctly understands — and I would add ‘or correctly believes’ — that a practice is religious and an accommodation is necessary, that’s it,” he said. “Then he has to accommodate unless he has one of the excuses under the statute.”

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from New York.

A version of this article appears in print on February 26, 2015, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: In a Case of Religious Dress, Justices Explore the Obligations of Employers. Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe

Go to Home Page »

The New York Times