Posted: August 4th, 2022

Litigation Path

Litigation Path
Name
Institution

Litigation Path
Filing of complaint
Samantha Elauf filed her complaint against Abercrombie with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Names of he different courts that considered the case at each level
• Oklahoma District Court
• The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• The Supreme Court of the United States
District court’s decision
The district court granted summary judgment on legal responsibility to EEOC after ruling that the proof presented ascertained that the plaintiff wore the headscarf in adherence to her Islamic beliefs, that the defendant knew the religious nature of her practice, and that it declined to employ her as a consequence. Elauf was subsequently awarded damages by a jury for the discrimination.
Outcome of the case at each of the different courts
• Oklahoma District Court-This court granted summary judgment on legal responsibility to EEOC. This is because the proof presented ascertained that the plaintiff wore the headscarf in adherence to her Islamic beliefs, that Abercrombie knew the religious nature of her practice, and even so still declined to employ her as a consequence.
• The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit-This court awarded the defendant summary judgment. The ground for the summary judgment was that, failure-to- accommodate legal responsibility is only applicable when the employer is provided with actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation by the applicant.
• The Supreme Court of the United States-This court reversed the ruling of the Tenth Circuit of awarding summary judgment to the defendant. According to this court, it was unnecessary to demonstrate that the employer was fully aware of the need of the applicant for an accommodation so as to ascertain disparate treatment. Rather, it was only crucial to demonstrate that the need of the applicant for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the decision of the employer.

Order | Check Discount