Reply to this post in 200 words or more.
In the Abercrombie & Fitch’s case Samantha, who is a practicing Muslim and wears a Hijab went in for an interview. The interview went well and the hiring manager recommended that she be hired but was worried that her Hijab would violate the no hat policy. After talking to another manger they decided to not hire her. The EEOC sued on Samantha’s behalf and won. However the Supreme Court overturned the decision of Title VII. Stating that she had not mentioned that she would need accommodation. Therefore it was OK for them to not hire them. Employees should not state that they need accommodation because of their religion or any other protected right. Title VII states “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. Title VII also applies to private and public colleges and universities, employment agencies, and labor organizations” (http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/title-vii/). Therefore she should be protected under the law. However since Abercrombie had a no hat policy, and Samantha did not say she needed religious accommodation the case was dismissed. Personally I believe this is wrong however since there is an overlap in business activity and hiring regulations. The positives are a company has the freedom to hire whoever they want. Some negatives is that hiring regulations could be changed due to Title VII. Therefore you cannot hire someone based on their interview but they still may be lawsuit coming. Im using the duty ethical theory. I believe that you should be hired regardless of any regulations. If you fit the job I believe you should be able to do the things you need to do.