Pursuant to the statute, an employer must “reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.” 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b)(1), (2); see also EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 798 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1282 (N.D.Okla.2011). Further, Title VII's prohibits employer retaliation against an employee “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII] or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.”
The EEOC sued Abercrombie on Elauf's behalf, claiming that its refusal to hire Elauf violated Title VII. The District Court granted the EEOC summary judgment on the issue of liability, 798 F.Supp.2d 1272 (N.D.Okla.2011), held a trial on damages, and awarded $20,000. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment.
The EEOC sued Abercrombie on Elauf's behalf, claiming that its refusal to hire Elauf violated Title VII. The District Court granted the EEOC summary judgment on the issue of liability, 798 F.Supp.2d 1272 (N.D.Okla.2011), held a trial on damages, and awarded $20,000. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment.
Under the "failure to accommodate" burden-shifting analysis, the plaintiff employee bears the initial burden of production with respect to making out a prima facie case for failure to accommodate. Although the United States Supreme Court did not explicitly rework the elements of the prima facie case in Abercrombie & Fitch , the decision makes it clear that a plaintiff may establish such a case by showing that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with an employment requirement; and (2) her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take an adverse employment action against her. Compare E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. , 798 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1282 (N.D.Okla.2011)(describing the prima facie case as a "showing that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) she informed the employer of this belief; and (3) she was not hired for failing to comply with the employment requirement") to 135 S.Ct. at 2032("Abercrombie's primary argument is that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment without first showing that an employer has 'actual knowledge' of the applicant's need for an accommodation. We disagree.
An employer is on notice of a candidate's religion when "an employer has enough information to make it aware a conflict exists between the individual's religious practice or belief and a requirement for applying for or performing the job." See e.g., Shelton v. Univ. of Med & Dentistry of New JerseuShelton v. Univ. of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, 223 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 2000) (rejecting defendant's claim that it was not on notice about plaintiff's religious beliefs because of her failure to provide a note from her pastor where plaintiff claimed she notified defendant of her religion); Sistrunk v. Camden County Workforce Inv. Bd., No. 05-1506, 2007 WL 1175101, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2007) (denying summary judgment on the grounds of lack of notice of religious conflict where Rastafarian plaintiff mentioned to his supervisor that he could not cut his hair because of his "way of life."); see also EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1285 (N.D. Okla. 2011) (holding that the employer was on sufficient "notice" of a Muslim teen's religious belief that she must wear a hijab in public at all times in that she wore the hijab to her job interview.)