A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Abercrombie & Fitch hijab discrimination case before Supreme Court

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
A major employment discrimination case before the U.S. Supreme Court addresses how employers must respect their employees’ religious practices, when they are not certain what religion those workers believe in. On Feb. 25, justices heard oral arguments in a case that pits upscale teenage clothing chain Abercrombie & Fitch against a young Muslim woman who was turned down for a job at one of the company’s stores because she wore a hijab, a type of headscarf, to her interview. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is also part of the suit. Abercrombie has a “Look Policy” when it comes to their salespeople, whom they call “sales models.” The policy governs what clothing models are allowed to wear while on the sales floor. The plaintiff was 17 when she applied for a job at a local Abercrombie store. She interviewed with an assistant manager, who said the plaintiff appeared to be a good candidate based on the company’s “competencies,” and promised that the plaintiff would hear something in a few days. When Abercrombie never called, the plaintiff asked a friend who worked at the store. The friend told her that management had decided that the plaintiff’s hijab violated the Look Policy. She met with the store manager and the district manager, who confirmed that account. The plaintiff said she was told that, though the managers believed her headscarf was for religious purposes, the regional manager refused to hire her. The manager believed it would lead to a job applicant claiming the paint themselves green for religious purposes. Abercrombie says it did not violate the law, because it only guessed that the plaintiff was Muslim. It did not know for sure. For their party, the EEOC and the plaintiff argue that the fact that she did not specifically disclose her religion during the job interview, which employers cannot require, does not matter. Otherwise, employers could easily discriminate against certain religions, then claim they were off the hook because they did not know the applicants’ religions for certain. We will now await the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.