A Supreme Court ruling requiring employers to accommodate workers who wear articles of clothing for religious reasons is a victory for more than just the young Muslim woman who wanted to work at Abercrombie & Fitch, several activist groups said.
In an 8-1 vote, the high court sided with Samantha Elauf of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who was 17 when she applied for a sales position at a mall outlet for Abercrombie Kids, part of the trendy clothing chain. Even though Elauf didn't tell the person interviewing her for the position called a "model" in Abercrombie's terminology that the black headscarf she wore reflected her understanding of Islam, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the firm "knew or at least suspected that the scarf was worn for religious reasons" and should have asked if there was a religious accommodation issue to the company's dress standards.
Groups representing a variety of faith traditions praised the ruling.
Citing the 1964 federal law banning discrimination on the basis of religion, the Baptist Joint Committee's general counsel, attorney K. Holly Hollman, said the ruling asserts religion shouldn't be used to disqualify any job seeker.
"The court today confirmed the fundamental principle in Title VIIs ban on religious discrimination in employment. Neither a persons religion nor the potential need to accommodate a religious practice should be a basis for denying a prospective employee a job," she said in a statement.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which says it is "America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization," also applauded the ruling in an emailed statement.
"The Supreme Court rightly underscored that a job applicant's religious beliefs and practices must play no role in an employer's hiring decision," said William Burgess, CAIR's senior staff attorney. "A company engages in illegal employment discrimination when it decides not to hire someone out of a desire to avoid accommodating his or her religious needs, confirmed or not."
Members of America's Sikh community, who are sometimes confused with Muslims because of the turbans worn by Sikh males, also supported the ruling, a Sikh Coalition statement said. The group's attorney, Gurjot Kaur, said Elauf's court win "is an enormous victory for the Sikh American community. We applaud her courage and conviction to practice her faith fearlessly and it reminds us all that our rule of law protects that."
Rachel Laser of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism said Jews in this country can understand the Elauf case based on their history in the United States.
"As Jews, we have historically known the insidious nature of religious discrimination including workplace discrimination," Laser said in a statement. "The recent climate of Islamophobia further highlights the importance and significance of (the Elauf) decision."
Earlier this year, after the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Abercrombie case, the Deseret News noted the many difficulties an employer can face when interviewing a job applicant who might arrive at an interview in a specific type of religious clothing, but does not voice the need for a religious accommodation.
In his opinion, however, Justice Scalia was unambiguous: "An employer may not make an applicants religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions."
In an 8-1 vote, the high court sided with Samantha Elauf of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who was 17 when she applied for a sales position at a mall outlet for Abercrombie Kids, part of the trendy clothing chain. Even though Elauf didn't tell the person interviewing her for the position called a "model" in Abercrombie's terminology that the black headscarf she wore reflected her understanding of Islam, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the firm "knew or at least suspected that the scarf was worn for religious reasons" and should have asked if there was a religious accommodation issue to the company's dress standards.
Groups representing a variety of faith traditions praised the ruling.
Citing the 1964 federal law banning discrimination on the basis of religion, the Baptist Joint Committee's general counsel, attorney K. Holly Hollman, said the ruling asserts religion shouldn't be used to disqualify any job seeker.
"The court today confirmed the fundamental principle in Title VIIs ban on religious discrimination in employment. Neither a persons religion nor the potential need to accommodate a religious practice should be a basis for denying a prospective employee a job," she said in a statement.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which says it is "America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization," also applauded the ruling in an emailed statement.
"The Supreme Court rightly underscored that a job applicant's religious beliefs and practices must play no role in an employer's hiring decision," said William Burgess, CAIR's senior staff attorney. "A company engages in illegal employment discrimination when it decides not to hire someone out of a desire to avoid accommodating his or her religious needs, confirmed or not."
Members of America's Sikh community, who are sometimes confused with Muslims because of the turbans worn by Sikh males, also supported the ruling, a Sikh Coalition statement said. The group's attorney, Gurjot Kaur, said Elauf's court win "is an enormous victory for the Sikh American community. We applaud her courage and conviction to practice her faith fearlessly and it reminds us all that our rule of law protects that."
Rachel Laser of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism said Jews in this country can understand the Elauf case based on their history in the United States.
"As Jews, we have historically known the insidious nature of religious discrimination including workplace discrimination," Laser said in a statement. "The recent climate of Islamophobia further highlights the importance and significance of (the Elauf) decision."
Earlier this year, after the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Abercrombie case, the Deseret News noted the many difficulties an employer can face when interviewing a job applicant who might arrive at an interview in a specific type of religious clothing, but does not voice the need for a religious accommodation.
In his opinion, however, Justice Scalia was unambiguous: "An employer may not make an applicants religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions."