FINALLY! Abercrombie & Fitch wins one against CAIR and its ‘Hijab Jihad’ against American businesses

After getting sued several times by Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR and its leftist allies in the EEOC over A&F’s dress code policy which prohibited the wearing of Muslim headbags (hijabs) by sales associates in the store,  an appeals court ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch.


PREVIOUS STORIES/VIDEOS: A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of an Oklahoma woman who says she wasn’t hired by Abercrombie & Fitch because her headscarf conflicted with the retailer’s dress code, which has since been changed.

A federal judge initially ruled in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the lawsuit for Samantha Elauf. The EEOC alleges that Elauf wasn’t hired in 2008 at an Abercrombie store in Tulsa’s Woodland Hills Mall because her hijab violated the retailer’s “Look Policy.”

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Tuesday, finding that Elauf never told Abercrombie she needed a religious accommodation – even though she was wearing the headscarf during her interview.

The company changed its policy three years ago to allow the Muslim head coverings. (If they are smart, they will never hire another Muslim)




Abercrombie & Fitch (“Abercrombie”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie, on the EEOC’s claim that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable religious accommodation for a prospective employee, Samantha Elauf, in contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the EEOC. Abercrombie is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her headscarf or “hijab”1 for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice, due to a conflict between the practice and Abercrombie’s clothing policy. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and enter judgment in favor of Abercrombie, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.