Samantha Elauf: Abercrombie & Fitch Discriminates Against Muslims

by Tina Kells | September 18, 2009 at 04:55 pm

1655 views | 4 Recommendations | 8 comments

Muslin teen Samantha Elauf has made a startling allegation against retail store Abercrombie & Fitch claiming that she was discriminated against when she applied for a job. Samantha Elauf, 17, says she was told that her head scarf violated the Abercrombie & Fitch employee "Look Policy" and that she would not be hired.

Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim in the United States who wears the hijab in keeping with her beliefs. After the rather weak "Look Policy" explanation was offered as the reason for refusing her a job she went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and filed a complaint. An attempt to settle the dispute with Abercrombie & Fitch through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission failed.

On September 16, 2009 Samantha Elauf filed a complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch claiming the "Look Policy" discriminates against Muslims. The lawsuit asks for damages to be paid out to Samantha Elauf, but more importantly it asks that Abercrombie & Fitch be forced to put a stop its discriminatory hiring practices.

In the lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Tulsa by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 17-year-old Samantha Elauf said she applied for a sales position at the Abercrombie Kids store in the Woodland Hills Mall in June 2008. The teen, who wears a hijab in accordance with her religious beliefs, claims the manager told her the head scarf violates the store's "Look Policy."

"These actions constitute discrimination against Ms. Elauf on the basis of religion," the lawsuit states.

A spokeswoman for the New Albany, Ohio-based retailer declined to comment on the lawsuit but said the company has "a strong equal employment opportunity policy, and we accommodate religious beliefs and practices when possible."

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "It is unlawful for employers to treat applicants or workers differently based on their religious beliefs or practices in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring and job assignments" and this is the foundation of the lawsuit. Unfortunately, history supports Samantha Elauf and the EEOC's position that Abercrombie & Fitch has some racists and discriminatory tendencies.

This is not the first time that Abercrombie & Fitch has been called to task by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over discrimination in its workplace. In 2004 Abercrombie & Fitch paid a $50 million settlement after the EEOC claimed it promoting whites over minorities and cultivating a practically all-white image in its catalogs promoted whites over minorities and promoted a predominantly all-white image in its catalogs.

Earlier this year, in June of 2009, Abercrombie & Fitch lost a similar complaint filed by a disabled employee in the UK. Riam Dean, 22, was not allowed to work on the floor of the Abercrombie & Fitch store in London because she has a prosthetic arm. As in the Samantha Elauf case, Riam Dean was told that her disability meant she did not live up to the Abercrombie & Fitch "Look Policy."

Riam Dean, 22, claimed she was forced off the sales floor of the clothing chain's London shop in Savile Row because of a "blatant policy of eugenics". Miss Dean was born with her left forearm missing and claimed disability discrimination after being repremanded for wearing a cardigan during her shift last summer. The student said that the incident has made her "question her worth as a human being" and claimed that she was effectively "bullied" out of her job when she resigned in July last year.

A central London employment tribunal ruled today said that she had been wrongfully dismissed and unlawfully harassed.

Abercrombie & Fitch have been order to pay Miss Dean over $14,000 for "hurt feelings", loss of earnings and damages, but the panel did not uphold her claim for disability discrimination.

This is the second time this week that Abercrombie & Fitch has made headlines due to a lawsuit. Earlier in the week Abercrombie & Fitch announced a lawsuit against Beyonce it owns the rights to the name of her new perfume 'Sasha Fierce,' because of a similarly named cologne they sell called 'Fierce.' Abercrombie & Fitch does nearly $28 million in perfume sales every year and claims the name could cause consumer confusion.

Read a first hand account by a former Abercrombie & Fitch employee about the inner workings of the brand and her experience with the "Look Policy" written in 2004: On the Inside of Abercrombie & Fitch.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Barry Artiste

at 13:36 on September 19th, 2009

When in Rome I suppose, who defines "The Look" I wonder?

The Elitist Groovians?

eastvanray

at 14:45 on September 19th, 2009

This is becoming a real problem. If the religion that people freely choose to follow prescribes that its followers wear or behave in such a way as to violate the codes of dress or conduct of a private employer that employer should be well within their rights not to hire those people. If they are really offended they can organize a boycott and try to force the company to change their policy but private businesses should be free to discriminate against potential employees in whatever way they choose in order to benefit their business. Unlike government employers who operate from tax dollars paid by all, private businesses have no such obligation to treat everyone equally.

John N (not verified)

at 08:43 on September 23rd, 2009

I don't personally shop at AF so I don't have a pony in this race. Having said that, I don't think AF is denying her the right to freely practice her religion. IMHO, CARE Oklahoma is way off on this one.The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing the freedom of speech, infringing the freedom of the press, limiting the right to peaceably assemble, or limiting the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. AF sells hip/cool and they like their employees to personify such an image. Head scarfs simply aren't hip and cool in our society. Maybe she should apply at the AF store in Riyadh. They open the doors every morning to make money, not to enforce her right to express her religion.

gat (not verified)

at 08:44 on September 24th, 2009

screw this bitch......pretty soon a muslim will apply with a bomb strapped to his chest and call it standard attire for his sect of his religion. what if my religion promoted the wearing of human bones and skulls around my neck? if they won't hire me can i sue them too? people like this make me sick. and people in our country have the nerve to bitch about insurance rates - after awarding multi million dollar lawsuits to rediculous shit like this. why would she even apply at Abercrombie? she can't even wear the clothing - if she is true to her religion!

jta (not verified)

at 08:47 on September 24th, 2009

she is just chasing the money and everyone knows it! sad part is she'll probably win some!

ALexa (not verified)

at 17:08 on September 25th, 2009

I think this has been made into a bigger deal that it really was. The look policy does not allow employees to wear hats, anything on your head, etc. The manager was not discriminating against her because of her religion, she was just following the policy that is probably shoved down her throat. So exceptions can be made for this girl?? Everyone in this country wants to be treated freakin equally but this kind of stuff still goes on!!!!!! I think its ridiculous. I think this girl did this on purpose because she knew she could sue them just like every other person did. I think we will KEEP hearing about this kind of stuff. Its rather irritating, if you dont fit the look, dont work there. I would not get hired at a Hot Topic store I know this for sure!! And you dont see me filing a lawsuit.