Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F), started out as an outdoor sporting goods emporium when it first opened in 1892 and since transformed into an upscale retail casual wear store for young consumers. A&F has had history of public backlash for hypersexual advertisement and offensive products (Schlossberg). However, A&F received mass criticism after a 2009 lawsuit turned into Supreme Court case after refusing to hire a potential employee because religious headscarf violated the company's dress code ("EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."). In this paper, the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc will be analyzed on how it became a landmark case, as it gave prominence to issues regarding the lack of diversity…show more content… The usual tasks of a store associate are to help organize clothes on shelves, help customers with their purchases, and take inventory of back stock. None of these tasks would require any form of accommodation if an employee is wearing a headscarf. The only possible accommodation A&F would need to make is to their outdated, vague "Look Policy". Specifically, the section that uses the term "caps" because it has no precise meaning and should include a disclaimer that if the headwear is required for religious purposes or has valid reasoning then it should be allowed. Through revising this policy earlier and practicing proactive management, A&F could have avoided this situation and improved their brand…show more content… Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. 3). Thomas maintained that even though A&F "Look Policy" is strict and has the potential to affect individuals disproportionately, the policy treats all job candidates same through the required criteria. Consequently, he tries to insist that Elauf was not given a different type of treatment because of her headscarf and her not being hired could have been an unintentional decision. I agree with Thomas on how companies could at times do not realize they are performing an unfair action, but all tactics and strategies performed from companies are thought through carefully even on the most basic level. Companies try to avoid potential problems by making sure they take into consideration all of those affected and what issues could arise from their decision. More often than not, companies hold their employees to a high standard of fairness and equality and to help bring a positive image to their company. I challenge Thomas' on his logic because since companies think through their processes thoroughly then they should rarely have occasions where they act on a discriminatory judgement
