Abercrombie And Fitch s Responsibility For Committing...

In the subsequent article research, the reader will ascertain that Abercrombie Fitch stood responsible for committing religious discrimination against a 17 year old Muslim girl. The company elected not to hire Samantha Elauf, the applicant, for a sales position that stood to be offered. According to the company, the potential applicant violated the â€Å"look policy†. The â€Å"look policy† prohibits any employee from wearing head coverings. The article proposes that the company did not hire the applicant since she wore a hijab to the interview. According to the EEOC Abercrombie Fitch failed produce sufficient evidence that would have properly rebutted the allegations against them. The EEO states that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. This research will reveal if indeed this suit stood warranted, if this suit remained acceptable, what caused it to be warranted and did the EEOC make a mistake. Keywords: Discrimination, EEOC, Religion, and Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 The case of Abercrombie Fitch versus the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was based on the accusation that the company refused to hire a teenage Muslim girl because of her head scarf she wore to the interview. The company was alleged to have committed religious discrimination in which the company repudiated doing so, stating that it s verdict not to hire Samantha Elauf in