Branding clearly is an integral part of commerce, but sometimes obsession with brand can lead corporations down a dangerous path.

Take the case heard last week by the U.S. Supreme Court involving a young woman, Samantha Elauf, who was turned down for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. after she attended an interview wearing a headscarf.

The suit, which was brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleges that the clothing retailer turned down Ms. Elauf after the manager interviewing her told a more senior manager that she thought Ms. Elauf was a Muslim and was wearing the headscarf, or hijab, for religious reasons. The senior manager, who denied that he'd been informed that Ms. Elauf was likely a Muslim, said she should not be hired because she did not conform to Abercrombie's “Look Policy,” which precludes “caps.” The company has since changed its clothing policy.

According to the appeals court ruling, Abercrombie holds that a sales associate, or “model,” who violates the Look Policy “inaccurately represents the brand, causes consumer confusion, fails to perform an essential function of the position, and ultimately damages the brand.”

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled for the retailer, with most of the argument centering on whether the hijab-wearing job applicant explicitly told the company that she wore the headscarf for religious reasons and would, therefore, need an accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Abercrombie argues that she did not and that the company should not be held liable.

Reading the often entertaining transcript of oral arguments before the Supreme Court, it's hard to judge which way the justices are going to rule — the familiar liberal/conservative split clearly is showing — but, like many lawsuits, there are powerful arguments on both sides.

The EEOC holds that Ms. Elauf was not informed of the Look Policy in detail during the interview and, therefore, there was nothing to prompt her to raise the issue. Court records show that she asked a friend working at the store whether the headscarf would be a problem and the friend indicated that it probably would not.

Abercrombie — and no doubt other employers — understandably is concerned that a high court ruling against them would open it up to numerous other lawsuits from rejected job candidates who wore some kind of garb to an interview that suggested a religious belief but did not bring up the topic of religious accommodation.

Aside from the liability issues, you can't help feeling that if the retailer had been a little less focused on the minutiae of brand conformity, it would not have found itself in the position it is in. And, judging by her blog, if Abercrombie had focused more on what was inside Ms. Elauf's head rather than what was on it, they could have recruited a hip, fashion-conscious young woman with more than a little marketing savvy.