Retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. did not violate discrimination law when it failed to hire a job applicant who had not informed the company that her Muslim religion required her to wear a hijab, the Muslim religious head covering, a divided appellate panel ruled Wednesday.

In mid-2008, 17-year old Samantha Elauf applied for a job as a sales floor employee, a position that Abercrombie referred to as a “model,” in the New Albany, Ohio-based company’s Abercrombie Kids stores in the Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla., according to the ruling in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Sties Inc., an Ohio Corporation d/b/a/ Abercrombie Kids by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

At the time Ms. Elauf applied, Abercrombie had a “look policy” intended to promote and showcase its brand that prohibited employees from wearing black clothing and “caps,” although the “policy did not explicate the meaning of the term ‘cap,’” the ruling said.

Ms. Elauf claims to be a practicing Muslim and has worn a hijab since she was 13 for religious reasons, according to the ruling.

However, during her job interview with assistant manager Heather Cooke, “she never informed Ms. Cooke that she was Muslim, never brought up the subject of her headscarf, and never indicated that she wore the headscarf for religious reasons and that she felt obligated to do so, and thus would need an accommodation to address the conflict between her religious practice and Abercrombie’s clothing policy,” said the appellate ruling. Ms. Elauf wore a black headscarf during the interview, said the ruling.

%%BREAK%%

Ms. Cooke initially gave Ms. Elauf a score that amounted to a recommendation to hire her, said the ruling. However, after she consulted with a district manager over the issue of her headscarf, at his direction she changed the overall score, ensuring that Ms. Elauf would not be recommended for the job.

The EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie in September 2009. After the U.S. District Court in Tulsa ruled the EEOC could pursue the lawsuit in 2011, a jury awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages in the case.

“Abercrombie is entitled to summary judgment because there is no genuine dispute of a material fact regarding this key point: Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that her practice of wearing a hijab was based on her religious beliefs and (because she felt religiously obligated to wear it) that she would need an accommodation for the practice, because of a conflict between it and Abercrombie’s clothing policy,” said the panel, in overturning the District Court’s ruling.

The appellate court said this is one of the elements required to establish a prima facie case under Title VII’s religious accommodation theory.

“We conclude that the record offers absolutely no support for the district court’s determination that Ms. ‘Cooke knew (that Ms. Elauf) wore the head scarf based on her religious belief,’” said the ruling.

The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions to vacate its judgment and enter judgment in Abercrombie’s favor.

%%BREAK%%

A dissenting opinion says, however, the case should have been returned to the district court for trial on the issue of whether Abercrombie is liable for religious discrimination.

“The EEOC, on behalf of Samantha Elauf, established a triable claim that Abercrombie discriminated against Elauf on the basis of her religion when Abercrombie refused to hire her because of her religious practice of wearing a hijab,” it states.

“Specifically, the EEOC set forth evidence from which a jury could find that Abercrombie refused to hire Elauf, without ever informing her that wearing a hijab conflicted with Abercrombie’s look policy, in order to avoid having to discuss the possibility of reasonably accommodating Elauf’s religious practice. If true, that would be religious discrimination proscribed by Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” says the dissent.

Last month, the EEOC announced it had reached a $71,000 settlement with Abercrombie on two lawsuits filed over the issue of an employee and a job applicant wearing the hijab.

Commenting on the 10th Circuit’s ruling, Gerald L. Maatman Jr., a partner with law firm Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in Chicago, said the ruling will be influential.

It “illustrates how the EEOC’s enforcement and interpretation of employer obligations for religious accommodation is out of sync with the way in which judges think,” Mr. Maatman said.

“Employers need to provide reasonable accommodation,” and the ruling “is practical, straightforward common sense, easy to understand and tones down and rolls back the way in which the EEOC had interpreted the law,” which has made it “much more onerous” for employers, he said.

“It’s a welcome decision for employers and a very nice set of guidance of just what needs to be done when it comes to religious accommodation issues,” he said.

Mr. Maatman added it is “very unusual” for an appeals court to vacate and replace a District Court’s ruling that was in favor of the EEOC. “It doesn’t happen very often,” he said.

An EEOC spokesman could not be reached for comment because of the federal government shutdown.