CASE 13.2, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc (2013) involved a question of whether a clothing retailer violated Title VII when it refused to hire a Muslim woman-applicant because she wore a head scarf in violation of its company dress code, and whether the applicant gave proper notice of a religious accommodation. How did the court rule?
a. That the employer did not violate Title VII because the employer did not have to accommodate the wearing of the scarf because wearing the scarf involved a cultural practice, not a practice required by the potential employee's religion.
b. That the employer did not violate Title VII because the employer did not have to accommodate the wearing of the scarf because the employer established that it did not involve a sincerely held religious belief on the part of the potential employee.
c. That the employer did not violate Title VII because the employer did not have to accommodate the wearing of the scarf because such accommodation would place an undue hardship on the employer.
d. That the employer did not violate Title VII because the applicant failed to give proper notice of a religious accommodation.
d
You might also like to view...
An objective of segregation of duties is to structure the organization so that the perpetration of a fraud requires collusion between two or more individuals. What must a company do to achieve this objective? Why?
Determining what really matters to you is the first step to maintaining balance in your life
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Financial statements are business documents used to communicate information needed to make business decisions
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Ownership, control, and governance changes radically across the world
The publicly traded company is not the dominant global business organization—the privately held or family-owned business is the prevalent structure—and their goals and measures of performance differ dramatically. Indicate whether the statement is true or false.