Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015)


Facts

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (defendant) had a dress policy for its employees, which prohibited employees from wearing “caps.” The policy did not define “caps.” Samantha Elauf was a Muslim who wore a headscarf for religious purposes. Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie. Elauf was qualified for the job, but was not hired, because the district manager stated that her headscarf would violate Abercrombie’s dress policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) brought suit on Elauf’s behalf against Abercrombie for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Abercrombie argued that because Elauf never explicitly informed Abercrombie of her need for an accommodation, disparate treatment could not have occurred. The district court granted the EEOC summary judgement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and granted Abercrombie summary judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Alito, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence/Dissent (Thomas, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.