Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Abercrombie</i> Decision Raises the Bar for Accommodating Employees of Faith
In early June, the Supreme Court issued its decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie, a landmark case interpreting Title VII's prohibition on religious discrimination and the mandate for religious accommodations. The case raised the question of whether an employer must have actual knowledge of the religious nature of an employee's practice to be found liable for discrimination under Title VII for denying employment based on that practice. The short answer is no.
The Case
In an article published here in March 2015 (http://bit.ly/1KeaYIP), I summarized the facts of the case in detail, so I offer only a truncated version here. The plaintiff, Samantha Elauf, wore a headscarf to an interview at Abercrombie Kids. She wore the headscarf for religious purposes, but did not say so during the interview. The interviewer gave the plaintiff a score that would have ordinarily led to hire, but was unsure whether the headscarf conflicted with Abercrombie's dress code, known as the “Look Policy.” At her deposition, the interviewer stated that she spoke to a district manager and explained that she believed the plaintiff wore the headscarf because of her religious beliefs. The district manager stated that the headscarf, like all head coverings, would violate the Look Policy, and directed the interviewer not to hire Elauf.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?