On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, in an 8-1 vote, that an employee cannot be denied a position based on religious accommodations.

Though an old-standing principle, the court took it a step further and required no actual knowledge of the necessary accommodation. Simply denying someone employment based on religious discrimination, whether or not an accurate assumption, no longer falls under the umbrella of corporate sovereignty. It is now a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Abercrombie & Fitch Lose their Dress Code

Abercrombie & Fitch had a Look Policy to ensure that all employees were adhering to the particular image the store was trying to portray. Samantha Elauf applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Oklahoma, taking care to mention that she thought she was required by her Muslim religion to wear a head scarf. This particular store forbade caps as part of the Look Policy.

Heather Cooke, the assistant manager who conducted the interview with Elauf, was worried that the head scarf would be a violation of the Look Policy. Cooke took her concerns to the manager of the store and then the district manager, Randall Johnson, who informed her that a head scarf would violate the Look Policy. Based on this information and a directive from Johnson not to hire someone who would violate the Look Policy, Cooke did not extend a job offer to Elauf.

Although applicable to all employees of Abercrombie & Fitch, the policy produced discriminative results for Elauf. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf’s behalf and successfully convinced the Court that actual knowledge of accommodation was irrelevant. What is important is whether the decision to hire was based on an employer’s belief that a religious practice would hinder the employee’s work and therefore not hire that prospective candidate.

Shifting Focus Away from Discrimination and onto Ability

With this recent decision, businesses are going to have to be more careful about who they decide NOT to hire and why. Simply claiming lack of awareness of a potential accommodation will no longer fly as a way to avoid being labeled discriminatory. Using Justice Scalia’s words, “an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” The belief of the employer is key; as long as a disqualified employee can show that discrimination was the basis for the decision not to hire, that company will be in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Avoiding liability will come by way of implementing policies to better screen applicants. This will include training employees in charge of hiring to look past facial differences and onto the ability of the potential employee.

The Abercrombie & Fitch case is an illustrative example of how lack of training and lack of proper hiring techniques of the employer company can result in discrimination. Discrimination is more commonplace than many would like to admit; however, this ruling is helping to weed some discrimination out of the workplace.

Implications for Businesses – Is Corporate Sovereignty on its Way Out?

This decision, in connection with the recent debates surrounding employers discriminating against customers, is stripping businesses of their autonomy. Corporate sovereignty might be becoming a thing of the past. As the courts are continually expanding the rights of employees, they are conversely constricting the rights of employers.

Acceptance is the new standard that businesses are held to. Accepting of race, religion, and sexual orientation. While businesses might not be able to continue making all decisions for themselves, this lack of power is not without its benefits. Many might say that a loss of corporate power is a small price to pay for Americans being able to enjoy the freedom this country promises.

On the flip side, many are concerned with the religious freedom of the businesses themselves. For example, will businesses with known Christian roots, such as Hobby Lobby and Chickfila, still be able to hire employees in accordance with company values? Or will employee religious freedom trump corporate religious value? It is very likely that we will see an answer to these questions in the near future.