To revisit this article, select My Account, then   View saved stories

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Abercrombie’s Legal Defeat—and Its Cultural Failure

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

By Margaret Talbot

In an 81 decision the Supreme Court ruled this week that Abercrombie  Fitch the purveyor of pricey preppy bodyconscious...

“Culture” is a word activists like to deploy nowadays—there’s “rape culture” to condemn or a “culture of respect” to strive for—and sometimes it can sound like a vague or lazy way to invoke how power or discrimination work. Once in while, though, you see why that tote bag of a term makes sense—how the culture of a company or an institution matters very specifically when it comes to people’s rights. This week, that reminder came from the Supreme Court, which ruled, in an 8-1 decision, that Abercrombie & Fitch, the purveyor of pricey, preppy, body-conscious clothing for tweens and teens, had violated civil-rights law when it refused to hire a young Muslim woman who wore a head scarf to her job interview.

Samantha Elauf was seventeen when she applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Kids store in a Tulsa, Oklahoma, mall in 2008. She loved the mall, which she described as her second home, and was excited about the employee discount. The assistant manager who interviewed her deemed her qualified but worried that her hijab would violate the company’s “Look Policy,” a weirdly exhaustive rulebook that reads as though it had been dreamed up by a middle-school queen bee on a Ritalin bender. (BuzzFeed published parts of it, revealing, for example, that beards or mustaches were unacceptable on male employees, and that “sun-kissed” highlights were allowed but “no streaks, blocks or chunks or contrasting colors”; a New York article in 2014 added that strings on peasant blouses were required to remain untied and skinny jeans cuffed at one and a quarter inches.) The relevant prohibition for the assistant manager in Tulsa was one forbidding “caps.” When she consulted her district manager, he agreed that there was a problem, and Elauf was not hired, despite receiving a high rating as a potential employee.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on Elauf’s behalf and a district court found in her favor, awarding her twenty thousand dollars in damages. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, with the peculiar reasoning that an employer could not be held liable for failing to “accommodate a religious practice,” even if it had failed to do so, if an employee or prospective employee had not specifically asked for the accommodation. But as Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in this week’s decision, noted, “an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” Abercrombie managers could have asked Elauf if she’d be wearing the head scarf for religious reasons while on the job—as Justice Samuel Alito said during oral arguments, maybe she was just having a bad hair day when she came for her interview. They didn’t—they deemed it too awkward—but they did assume that Elauf covered her hair as a religious practice, and they rejected her on the basis of that assumption.

Any employer can have a dress code, of course, but it cannot use it to discriminate against an individual on the basis of his or her religious practice. If an employer fires or refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a hijab, an Orthodox Jew who wears a yarmulke, or a Sikh who wears a turban because of that religious practice, without even trying to find an accommodation, then that’s discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Announcing the opinion from the bench this week, Scalia declared the case “really easy.” (Clarence Thomas was the sole dissent: he argued that Abercrombie’s decision was based on a neutral anti-cap policy.)

So how was it that Abercrombie continued to fight all the way up to the Supreme Court in a case that Scalia—no pushover, even on matters of religious liberty—deemed an easy call? Maybe because the company’s culture—and the style and the attitude it marketed—persuaded it that its exclusionary policies would seem acceptable.

In 1992, Abercrombie was a hundred-year-old company known for its safari wear when a new C.E.O., Mike Jeffries, came in to update it. Jeffries had a vision, and it was not a broad one. As he told Salon in a 2006 interview, “In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive, all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes] and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.” Under Jeffries, Abercrombie photo spreads partook of a certain Leni Riefenstahl-at-a-frat-mixer aesthetic—lots of well-toned, bare-chested young white men (at the brand’s Hollister outlets, customers were greeted by shirtless men known, in company parlance, as “lifeguards”) and, among the young women, a surfeit of “sun-kissed,” long-haired blondeness and tanned bare legs. Salespeople hired for the stores were called “models” and subjected to the rigors of the Look Policy. Abercrombie did not sell women’s clothes in sizes above ten. In his New York piece, Matthew Shaer cited a catalogue of P.R. missteps with a similar flavor: “the quickly recalled line of Asian-themed t-shirts, which featured men in rice paddy hats and cartoonishly slanted eyes; a line of thongs, marketed to girls as young as ten, with the words wink-wink on the crotch.” For a while, the whole approach worked well, and profitably, for the company, and Jeffries converted a brand known for outfitting Teddy Roosevelt and Ernest Hemingway into one with candy-like allure for suburban middle-schoolers. At its height, Abercrombie had a thousand storefronts.

The culture of the place also shaped its hiring practices in ways that got it into trouble. Elauf’s was not the first major discrimination suit against Abercrombie. In 2004, the company agreed to pay fifty million dollars to several thousand employees in order to settle a class-action lawsuit charging that it discriminated against African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans in both its hiring practices and its advertising. Among other things, the suit alleged that non-whites were regularly shoehorned into back-of-the-store jobs where customers wouldn’t see them as much.

Jeffries found it difficult to imagine that there might be cool kids who were not popular or, for that matter, blonde and white. The eventual result was a major downturn for the brand. The recession and the rise of stores like H&M, Forever 21, and Uniqlo that sell fun, stylish clothes cheaply, were factors. But there was also that aggressively conventional vibe. Erik Gordon, a business-school professor at the University of Michigan, told New York , “This generation is about inclusiveness and valuing diversity. It’s not about looking down on people.” That may be a bit hopeful, but there’s something to it: this is the era of transgender cover girls and Sikh Gap models . In the deeply if imperfectly pluralistic United States, even during moments of high anti-Muslim feeling, a policy like the misguided one in France, which forbids the hijab in public schools, would never get serious consideration. Elauf went on to be hired at Forever 21 and Old Navy, and a photo in the Wall Street Journal this year showed her working at her most recent job, as a merchandising manager at Oklahoma’s first Urban Outfitters: she’s wearing a black head scarf, artfully shredded jeans, and ankle boots, and she’s smiling. Abercrombie was out of touch.

In its marketing strategy if not its legal one, the company is trying to catch up. Last December, after protests from shareholders and many months of declining store sales, Jeffries stepped down as C.E.O. In April, the company let it be known that it would pursue “more inclusive and diverse” hiring practices and allow for a dress code that was “more individualistic.” It was clearly announcing these changes in hopes of reversing its sales slump. That might seem trivial. But if it’s no longer profitable to tout your cultural intolerance, that’s pretty cool.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Abercrombie & Fitch’s No-Go Logo

By Vauhini Vara

The Ellen Pao Trial: What Do We Mean By “Discrimination”?

By Kelefa Sanneh

What SCOTUS Has to Decide About Trump and Disqualification

By Amy Davidson Sorkin

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

Eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch stores, inc..

  • Supreme Court

EEOC v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. 731 F. 3d 1106, reversed and remanded.

  • Syllabus [Syllabus] [PDF]
  • Opinion , Scalia [Scalia Opinion] [PDF]
  • Concurrence , Alito [Alito Concurrence] [PDF]
  • Concur-Dissent , Thomas [Thomas Concur-Dissent] [PDF]

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v . ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

Respondent (Abercrombie) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The EEOC prevailed in the District Court, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, awarding Abercrombie summary judgment on the ground that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.

Held : To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision requires Elauf to show that Abercrombie (1) “fail[ed] . . . to hire” her (2) “because of” (3) “[her] religion” (including a religious practice). 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) . And its “because of” standard is understood to mean that the protected characteristic cannot be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision. §2000e–2(m). Thus, rather than imposing a knowledge standard, §2000e–2(a)(1) prohibits certain motives , regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Title VII contains no knowledge requirement. Furthermore, Title VII’s definition of religion clearly in dicates that failure-to-accommodate challenges can be brought as disparate-treatment claims. And Title VII gives favored treatment to religious practices, rather than demanding that religious practices be treated no worse than other practices. Pp. 2–7.

731 F. 3d 1106 , reversed and remanded.

 S calia , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J. , and K ennedy , G insburg , B reyer , S otomayor , and K agan , JJ., joined. A lito , J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. T homas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

_________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

 Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship. The question presented is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.

 We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), against whom the Tenth Circuit granted summary judgment. Respondent Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., operates several lines of clothing stores, each with its own “style.” Consistent with the image Abercrombie seeks to project for each store, the company imposes a Look Policy that governs its employees’ dress. The Look Policy prohibits “caps”—a term the Policy does not define—as too informal for Abercrombie’s desired image.

 Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim who, consistent  with her understanding of her religion’s requirements, wears a headscarf. She applied for a position in an Abercrombie store, and was interviewed by Heather Cooke, the store’s assistant manager. Using Abercrombie’s ordinary system for evaluating applicants, Cooke gave Elauf a rating that qualified her to be hired; Cooke was concerned, however, that Elauf’s headscarf would conflict with the store’s Look Policy.

 Cooke sought the store manager’s guidance to clarify whether the headscarf was a forbidden “cap.” When this yielded no answer, Cooke turned to Randall Johnson, the district manager. Cooke informed Johnson that she believed Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith. Johnson told Cooke that Elauf’s headscarf would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise, and directed Cooke not to hire Elauf.

 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 (ND Okla. 2011), held a trial on damages, and awarded $20,000. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment. 731 F. 3d 1106 (2013). It concluded that ordinarily an employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation. Id., at 1131. We granted certiorari. 573 U. S. ___ (2014).

 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 253 , as amended, prohibits two categories of employment prac-tices. It is unlawful for an employer:

“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any indi vidual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a) .

 These two proscriptions, often referred to as the “disparate treatment” (or “intentional discrimination”) provision and the “disparate impact” provision, are the only causes of action under Title VII. The word “religion” is defined to “includ[e] all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to” a “religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” §2000e( j). 1

 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. Instead, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. 2

  The disparate-treatment provision forbids employers to: (1) “fail . . . to hire” an applicant (2) “because of” (3) “such individual’s . . . religion” (which includes his religious practice). Here, of course, Abercrombie (1) failed to hire Elauf. The parties concede that (if Elauf sincerely believes that her religion so requires) Elauf’s wearing of a headscarf is (3) a “religious practice.” All that remains is whether she was not hired (2) “because of” her religious practice.

 The term “because of” appears frequently in antidiscrimination laws. It typically imports, at a minimum, the traditional standard of but-for causation. University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v . Nassar , 570 U. S. ___ (2013). Title VII relaxes this standard, however, to prohibit even making a protected characteristic a “motivating factor” in an employment decision. 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(m) . “Because of” in §2000e–2(a)(1) links the forbidden consideration to each of the verbs preceding it; an individual’s actual religious practice may not be a motivating factor in failing to hire, in refusing to hire, and so on.

 It is significant that §2000e–2(a)(1) does not impose a knowledge requirement. As Abercrombie acknowledges, some antidiscrimination statutes do. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 defines discrimi nation to include an employer’s failure to make “reason- able accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations” of an applicant. §12112(b)(5)(A) (emphasis added). Title VII contains no such limitation.

 Instead, the intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives , regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge. Motive and knowledge are separate concepts. An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive . Conversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.

 Thus, the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. For example, suppose that an employer thinks (though he does not know for certain) that a job applicant may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath, and thus be unable to work on Saturdays. If the applicant actually requires an accommodation of that religious practice, and the employer’s desire to avoid the prospective accommodation is a motivating factor in his decision, the employer violates Title VII.

 Abercrombie urges this Court to adopt the Tenth Circuit’s rule “allocat[ing] the burden of raising a religious conflict.” Brief for Respondent 46. This would require the employer to have actual knowledge of a conflict between an applicant’s religious practice and a work rule. The problem with this approach is the one that inheres in most incorrect interpretations of statutes: It asks us to add words to the law to produce what is thought to be a desirable result. That is Congress’s province. We construe Title VII’s silence as exactly that: silence. Its disparate- treatment provision prohibits actions taken with the motive of avoiding the need for accommodating a religious practice. A request for accommodation, or the employer’s certainty that the practice exists, may make it easier to infer motive, but is not a necessary condition of liability. 3

 Abercrombie argues in the alternative that a claim based on a failure to accommodate an applicant’s religious practice must be raised as a disparate-impact claim, not a disparate-treatment claim. We think not. That might have been true if Congress had limited the meaning of “religion” in Title VII to religious belief —so that discriminating against a particular religious practice would not be disparate treatment though it might have disparate impact. In fact, however, Congress defined “religion,” for Title VII’s purposes, as “includ[ing] all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j) . Thus, religious practice is one of the protected characteristics that cannot be accorded disparate treatment and must be accommodated.

 Nor does the statute limit disparate-treatment claims to only those employer policies that treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices. Abercrombie’s argument that a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination” may make sense in other contexts. But Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices—that they be treated no worse than other practices. Rather, it gives them favored  treatment, affirmatively obligating employers not “to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s” “religious observance and practice.” An employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no-headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an “aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,” it is no response that the sub-sequent “fail[ure] . . . to hire” was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.

 The Tenth Circuit misinterpreted Title VII’s requirements in granting summary judgment. We reverse its judgment and remand the case for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

1  For brevity’s sake, we will in the balance of this opinion usually omit reference to the §2000e( j) “undue hardship” defense to the accom-modation requirement, discussing the requirement as though it is absolute.

2  The concurrence mysteriously concludes that it is not the plaintiff ’s burden to prove failure to accommodate. Post , at 5. But of course that is the plaintiff’s burden, if failure to hire “because of” the plaintiff’s “religious practice” is the gravamen of the complaint. Failing to hire for that reason is synonymous with refusing to accommodate the religious practice. To accuse the employer of the one is to accuse him of the other. If he is willing to “accommodate”—which means nothing more than allowing the plaintiff to engage in her religious practice despite the employer’s normal rules to the contrary—adverse action “because of” the religious practice is not shown. “The clause that begins with the word ‘unless,’” as the concurrence describes it, ibid. , has no function except to place upon the employer the burden of establishing an “undue hardship” defense. The concurrence provides no example, not even an unrealistic hypothetical one, of a claim of failure to hire because of religious practice that does not say the employer refused to permit (“failed to accommodate”) the religious practice. In the nature of things, there cannot be one.

3  While a knowledge requirement cannot be added to the motive requirement, it is arguable that the motive requirement itself is not met unless the employer at least suspects that the practice in question is a religious practice— i.e., that he cannot discriminate “because of” a “religious practice” unless he knows or suspects it to be a religious practice. That issue is not presented in this case, since Abercrombie knew—or at least suspected—that the scarf was worn for religious reasons. The question has therefore not been discussed by either side, in brief or oral argument. It seems to us inappropriate to resolve this unargued point by way of dictum, as the concurrence would do.

Concurrence

 Justice Alito , concurring in the judgment.

 This case requires us to interpret a provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action (refusal to hire, discharge, etc.) “against any individual . . . because of [ 1 ] such individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a) . Another provision states that the term “religion” “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” §2000e( j). When these two provisions are put together, the following rule (expressed in somewhat simplified terms) results: An employer may not take an adverse employment action against an applicant or employee because of any aspect of that individual’s religious observance or practice unless the employer demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate that observance or practice without undue hardship.

 In this case, Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, wore  a headscarf for a religious reason when she was interviewed for a job in a store operated by Abercrombie & Fitch. She was rejected because her scarf violated Abercrombie’s dress code for employees. There is sufficient evidence in the summary judgment record to support a finding that Abercrombie’s decisionmakers knew that Elauf was a Muslim and that she wore the headscarf for a religious reason. But she was never asked why she wore the headscarf and did not volunteer that information. Nor was she told that she would be prohibited from wearing the headscarf on the job. The Tenth Circuit held that Abercrombie was entitled to summary judgment because, except perhaps in unusual circumstances, “[a]pplicants or employees must initially inform employers of their religious practices that conflict with a work requirement and their need for a reasonable accommodation for them.” 731 F. 3d 1106 , 1142 (2013) (emphasis deleted).

 The relevant provisions of Title VII, however, do not impose the notice requirement that formed the basis for the Tenth Circuit’s decision. While I interpret those provisions to require proof that Abercrombie knew that Elauf wore the headscarf for a religious reason, the evidence of Abercrombie’s knowledge is sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

 The opinion of the Court states that “§2000e–2(a)(1) does not impose a knowledge requirement,” ante , at 4, but then reserves decision on the question whether it is a condition of liability that the employer know or suspect that the practice he refuses to accommodate is a religious practice, ante , at 6, n. 3, but in my view, the answer to this question, which may arise on remand, 2 2 is obvious. I would  hold that an employer cannot be held liable for taking an adverse action because of an employee’s religious practice unless the employer knows that the employee engages in the practice for a religious reason. If §2000e–2(a)(1) really “does not impose a knowledge requirement,” ante at 4, it would be irrelevant in this case whether Abercrombie had any inkling that Elauf is a Muslim or that she wore the headscarf for a religious reason. That would be very strange.

 The scarves that Elauf wore were not articles of clothing that were designed or marketed specifically for Muslim women. Instead, she generally purchased her scarves at ordinary clothing stores. In this case, the Abercrombie employee who interviewed Elauf had seen her wearing scarves on other occasions, and for reasons that the record does not make clear, came to the (correct) conclusion that she is a Muslim. But suppose that the interviewer in this case had never seen Elauf before. Suppose that the interviewer thought Elauf was wearing the scarf for a secular reason. Suppose that nothing else about Elauf made the interviewer even suspect that she was a Muslim or that she was wearing the scarf for a religious reason. If “§2000e–2(a)(1) does not impose a knowledge requirement,” Abercrombie would still be liable. The EEOC, which sued on Elauf’s behalf, does not adopt that interpretation, see, e.g., Brief for Petitioner 19, and it is surely wrong.

 The statutory text does not compel such a strange result. It is entirely reasonable to understand the prohibition against an employer’s taking an adverse action because of a religious practice to mean that an employer may  not take an adverse action because of a practice that the employer knows to be religious. Consider the following sentences. The parole board granted the prisoner parole because of an exemplary record in prison. The court sanctioned the attorney because of a flagrant violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No one is likely to understand these sentences to mean that the parole board granted parole because of a record that, unbeknownst to the board, happened to be exemplary or that the court sanctioned the attorney because of a violation that, unbeknownst to the court, happened to be flagrant. Similarly, it is entirely reasonable to understand this statement—“The employer rejected the applicant because of a religious practice”—to mean that the employer rejected the applicant because of a practice that the employer knew to be religious.

 This interpretation makes sense of the statutory provisions. Those provisions prohibit intentional discrimination, which is blameworthy conduct, but if there is no knowledge requirement, an employer could be held liable without fault. The prohibition of discrimination because of religious practices is meant to force employers to consider whether those practices can be accommodated without undue hardship. See §2000e( j). But the “no-knowledge” interpretation would deprive employers of that opportunity. For these reasons, an employer cannot be liable for taking adverse action because of a religious practice if the employer does not know that the practice is religious.

 A plaintiff need not show, however, that the employer took the adverse action because of the religious nature of the practice. Cf. post , at 4 ( Thomas, J ., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Suppose, for example, that an employer rejected all applicants who refuse to work on Saturday, whether for religious or nonreligious reasons. Applicants whose refusal to work on Saturday was known  by the employer to be based on religion will have been rejected because of a religious practice.

 This conclusion follows from the reasonable accommodation requirement imposed by §2000e( j). If neutral work rules ( e.g. , every employee must work on Saturday, no employee may wear any head covering) precluded liability, there would be no need to provide that defense, which allows an employer to escape liability for refusing to make an exception to a neutral work rule if doing so would impose an undue hardship.

 This brings me to a final point. Under the relevant statutory provisions, an employer’s failure to make a reasonable accommodation is not an element that the plaintiff must prove. I am therefore concerned about the Court’s statement that it “ is the plaintiff’s burden [to prove failure to accommodate].” Ante, at 3 n. 2. This blatantly contradicts the language of the statutes. As I noted at the beginning, when §2000e–2(a) and §2000e( j) are combined, this is the result:

“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of [any aspect of] such individual’s . . . religious . . . practice . . . unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to [the] employee’s or prospective employee’s religious . . . practice . . . without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. ” (Emphasis added.)

 The clause that begins with the term “unless” unmistakably sets out an employer defense. If an employer chooses to assert that defense, it bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. A plaintiff, on the other hand, must prove the elements set out prior to the “unless” clause, but that portion of the rule makes no mention of accommodation. Thus, a plaintiff need not plead or prove that the employer wished to avoid making  an accommodation or could have done so without undue hardship. If a plaintiff shows that the employer took an adverse employment action because of a religious observance or practice, it is then up to the employer to plead and prove the defense. The Court’s statement subverts the statutory text, and in close cases, the Court’s reallocation of the burden of persuasion may be decisive.

 In sum, the EEOC was required in this case to prove that Abercrombie rejected Elauf because of a practice that Abercrombie knew was religious. It is undisputed that Abercrombie rejected Elauf because she wore a headscarf, and there is ample evidence in the summary judgment record to prove that Abercrombie knew that Elauf is a Muslim and that she wore the scarf for a religious reason. The Tenth Circuit therefore erred in ordering the entry of summary judgment for Abercrombie. On remand, the Tenth Circuit can consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on the question of Abercrombie’s knowledge. The Tenth Circuit will also be required to address Abercrombie’s claim that it could not have accommodated Elauf’s wearing the headscarf on the job without undue hardship.

1  Under 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(m) , an employer takes an action “because of” religion if religion is a “motivating factor” in the decision.

2 2 Cooke testified that she told Johnson that she believed Elauf wore a head scarf for a religious reason, App. 87, but Johnson testified that Cooke did not share this belief with him, id., at 146. If Abercrombie’s knowledge is irrelevant, then the lower courts will not have to decide whether there is a genuine dispute on this question. But if Abercrombie’s knowledge is relevant and if the lower courts hold that there is a genuine dispute of material fact about Abercrombie’s knowledge, the question will have to be submitted to the trier of fact. For these reasons, we should decide this question now.

Concurrence and Dissent

 Justice Thomas , concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 I agree with the Court that there are two—and only two—causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as understood by our precedents: a disparate-treatment (or intentional-discrimination) claim and a disparate-impact claim. Ante, at 3. Our agreement ends there. Unlike the majority, I adhere to what I had thought before today was an undisputed proposition: Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.” Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can prevail here only if Abercrombie engaged in intentional discrimination, and because Abercrombie’s application of its neutral Look Policy does not meet that description, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.

 This case turns on whether Abercrombie’s conduct constituted “intentional discrimination” within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. §1981a(a)(1) . That provision allows a Title VII plaintiff to “recover compensatory and punitive damages” only against an employer “who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment  practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact).” The damages award EEOC obtained against Abercrombie is thus proper only if that company engaged in “intentional discrimination”—as opposed to “an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact”—within the meaning of §1981a(a)(1).

 The terms “intentional discrimination” and “disparate impact” have settled meanings in federal employment discrimination law. “[I]ntentional discrimination . . . occur[s] where an employer has treated a particular person less favorably than others because of a protected trait.” Ricci v. DeStefano , 557 U. S. 557 , 577 (2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “[D]isparate-impact claims,” by contrast, “involve employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.” Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez , 540 U. S. 44 , 52 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conceived by this Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. , 401 U. S. 424 (1971) , this “theory of discrimination” provides that “a facially neutral employment practice may be deemed illegally discriminatory without evidence of the employer’s subjective intent to discriminate that is required in a disparate-treatment case,” Raytheon, supra, at 52–53 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

 I would hold that Abercrombie’s conduct did not constitute “intentional discrimination.” Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf. Ante, at 2. In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices. To be sure, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral Look Policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith. But that is a  classic case of an alleged disparate impact. It is not what we have previously understood to be a case of disparate treatment because Elauf received the same treatment from Abercrombie as any other applicant who appeared unable to comply with the company’s Look Policy. See ibid. ; App. 134, 144. Because I cannot classify Abercrombie’s conduct as “intentional discrimination,” I would affirm.

 Resisting this straightforward application of §1981a, the majority expands the meaning of “intentional discrimination” to include a refusal to give a religious applicant “favored treatment.” Ante, at 6–7. But contrary to the majority’s assumption, this novel theory of discrimination is not commanded by the relevant statutory text.

 Title VII makes it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion.” §2000e–2(a)(1). And as used in Title VII, “[t]he term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” §2000e( j). With this gloss on the definition of “religion” in §2000e–2(a)(1), the majority concludes that an employer may violate Title VII if he “refuse[s] to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religious . . . practice” (unless he has an “undue hardship” defense). See ante, at 3–4.

 But inserting the statutory definition of religion into §2000e–2(a) does not answer the question whether Abercrombie’s refusal to hire Elauf was “because of her religious practice.” At first glance, the phrase “because of  such individual’s religious practice” could mean one of two things. Under one reading, it could prohibit taking an action because of the religious nature of an employee’s particular practice. Under the alternative reading, it could prohibit taking an action because of an employee’s practice that happens to be religious.

 The distinction is perhaps best understood by example. Suppose an employer with a neutral grooming policy forbidding facial hair refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a beard for religious reasons. Assuming the employer applied the neutral grooming policy to all applicants, the motivation behind the refusal to hire the Muslim applicant would not be the religious nature of his beard, but its existence. Under the first reading, then, the Muslim applicant would lack an intentional-discrimination claim, as he was not refused employment “because of” the religious nature of his practice. But under the second reading, he would have such a claim, as he was refused employment “because of” a practice that happens to be religious in nature.

 One problem with the second, more expansive reading is that it would punish employers who have no discrimina- tory motive. If the phrase “because of such individual’s religious practice” sweeps in any case in which an employer takes an adverse action because of a practice that hap- pens to be religious in nature, an employer who had no idea that a particular practice was religious would be penalized. That strict-liability view is plainly at odds with the concept of intentional discrimination. Cf. Raytheon , supra, at 54, n. 7 (“If [the employer] were truly unaware that such a disability existed, it would be impossible for her hiring decision to have been based, even in part, on [the applicant’s] disability. And, if no part of the hiring decision turned on [the applicant’s] status as disabled, he cannot, ipso facto , have been subject to disparate treatment”). Surprisingly, the majority leaves the door open to  this strict-liability theory, reserving the question whether an employer who does not even “suspec[t] that the practice in question is a religious practice” can nonetheless be punished for intentional discrimination. Ante, at 6, n. 3.

 For purposes of today’s decision, however, the majority opts for a compromise, albeit one that lacks a foothold in the text and fares no better under our precedents. The majority construes §2000e–2(a)(1) to punish employers who refuse to accommodate applicants under neutral policies when they act “with the motive of avoiding accommodation.” Ante , at 5. But an employer who is aware that strictly applying a neutral policy will have an adverse effect on a religious group, and applies the policy anyway, is not engaged in intentional discrimination, at least as that term has traditionally been understood. As the Court explained many decades ago, “ ‘Discriminatory purpose’ ”— i.e., the purpose necessary for a claim of intentional discrimination—demands “more than . . . awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney , 442 U. S. 256 , 279 (1979) (internal citation and footnote omitted).

 I do not dispute that a refusal to accommodate can, in some circumstances, constitute intentional discrimination. If an employer declines to accommodate a particular religious practice, yet accommodates a similar secular (or other denominational) practice, then that may be proof that he has “treated a particular person less favorably than others because of [a religious practice].” Ricci , 557 U. S., at 577 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see also, e.g., Dixon v. Hallmark Cos. , 627 F. 3d 849 , 853 (CA11 2010) (addressing a policy forbidding display of “religious items” in management offices). But merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy  for a religious practice cannot be described as treating a particular applicant “less favorably than others.” The majority itself appears to recognize that its construction requires something more than equal treatment. See ante, at 6–7 (“Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices,” but instead “gives them favored treatment”). But equal treatment is not disparate treatment, and that basic principle should have disposed of this case.

 The majority’s novel theory of intentional discrimination is also inconsistent with the history of this area of employment discrimination law. As that history shows, cases arising out of the application of a neutral policy absent religious accommodations have traditionally been understood to involve only disparate-impact liability.

 When Title VII was enacted in 1964, it prohibited discrimination “because of . . . religion” and did not include the current definition of “religion” encompassing “religious observance and practice” that was added to the statute in 1972. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§701, 703(a), 78 Stat. 253 –255. Shortly thereafter, the EEOC issued guidelines purporting to create “an obligation on the part of the employer to accommodate to the religious needs of employees.” 31 Fed. Reg. 8370 (1966). From an early date, the EEOC defended this obligation under a disparate-impact theory. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co. , O. T. 1970, No. 835, pp. 7, 13, 29–32. Courts and commentators at the time took the same view. See, e.g., Reid v. Memphis Publishing Co. , 468 F. 2d 346 , 350 (CA6 1972); Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co. , 300 F. Supp. 709, 713 (WD Mich. 1969), rev’d, 429 F. 2d 324 (CA6 1970), aff’d by an equally di- vided Court, 402 U. S. 689 (1971) ( per curiam ); 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law  187–188 (3d ed. 1976).

 This Court’s first decision to discuss a refusal to accommodate a religious practice, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison , 432 U. S. 63 (1977) , similarly did not treat such conduct as intentional discrimination. Hardison involved a conflict between an employer’s neutral seniority system for assigning shifts and an employee’s observance of a Saturday Sabbath. The employer denied the employee an accommodation, so he refused to show up for work on Saturdays and was fired. Id., at 67–69. This Court held that the employer was not liable under Title VII because the proposed accommodations would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer. Id. , at 77. To bolster its conclusion that there was no statutory violation, the Court relied on a provision of Title VII shielding the application of a “ ‘bona fide seniority or merit system’ ” from challenge unless that application is “ ‘the result of an intention to discriminate because of . . . religion.’ ” Id., at 81–82 (quoting §2000e–2(h)). In applying that provision, the Court observed that “[t]here ha[d] been no suggestion of discriminatory intent in th[e] case.” Id., at 82. But if the major- ity’s view were correct—if a mere refusal to accommodate a religious practice under a neutral policy could constitute intentional discrimination—then the Court in Hardison should never have engaged in such reasoning. After all, the employer in Hardison knew of the employee’s religious practice and refused to make an exception to its neutral seniority system, just as Abercrombie arguably knew of Elauf’s religious practice and refused to make an exception to its neutral Look Policy. 1 *

  Lower courts following Hardison likewise did not equate a failure to accommodate with intentional discrimination. To the contrary, many lower courts, including the Tenth Circuit below, wrongly assumed that Title VII creates a freestanding failure-to-accommodate claim distinct from either disparate treatment or disparate impact. See, e.g., 731 F. 3d 1106 , 1120 (2013) (“A claim for religious discrimination under Title VII can be asserted under several different theories, including disparate treatment and failure to accommodate” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Protos v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. , 797 F. 2d 129 , 134, n. 2 (CA3 1986) (“In addition to her religious accommodation argument, [the plaintiff] maintains that she prevailed in the district court on a disparate treatment claim”). That assumption appears to have grown out of statements in our cases suggesting that Title VII’s definitional provision concerning religion created an independ ent duty. See, e.g., Ansonia Bd. of Ed. v. Philbrook , 479 U. S. 60 , 63, n. 1 (1986) (“The reasonable accommodation duty was incorporated into the statute, somewhat awkwardly, in the definition of religion”). But in doing so, the lower courts correctly recognized that a failure-to-accommodate claim based on the application of a neutral policy is not a disparate-treatment claim. See, e.g., Reed v. International Union, United Auto, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. , 569 F. 3d 576 , 579–580 (CA6 2009); Chalmers v. Tulon Co. of Richmond , 101 F. 3d 1012 , 1018 (CA4 1996).

 At least before we granted a writ of certiorari in this case, the EEOC too understood that merely applying a neutral policy did not automatically constitute intentional discrimination giving rise to a disparate-treatment claim. For example, the Commission explained in a recent compliance manual, “A religious accommodation claim is distinct from a disparate treatment claim, in which the question is whether employees are treated equally.” EEOC Compliance Manual §12–IV, p. 46 (2008). Indeed, in asking us to take this case, the EEOC dismissed one of Abercrombie’s supporting authorities as “a case addressing intentional discrimination, not religious accommodation.” Reply to Brief in Opposition 7, n. Once we granted certiorari in this case, however, the EEOC altered course and advanced the intentional-discrimination theory now adopted by the majority. The Court should have rejected this eleventh-hour request to expand our understanding of “intentional discrimination” to include merely applying a religion-neutral policy.

 The Court today rightly puts to rest the notion that Title VII creates a freestanding religious-accommodation claim, ante, at 3, but creates in its stead an entirely new form of liability: the disparate-treatment-based-on-equal-treatment  claim. Because I do not think that Congress’ 1972 redefinition of “religion” also redefined “intentional discrimination,” I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit. I respectfully dissent from the portions of the majority’s decision that take the contrary view.

1 * Contrary to the EEOC’s suggestion, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison , 432 U. S. 63 (1977) , did not establish that a refusal to accommodate a religious practice automatically constitutes intentional discrimination. To be sure, Hardison remarked that the “effect of ” the 1972 amendment expanding the definition of religion “was to make it an unlawful employment practice under [§2000e–2(a)(1)] for an employer not to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, for the religious practices of his employees and prospective employees.” Id., at 74. But that statement should not be understood as a holding that such conduct automatically gives rise to a disparate-treatment claim. Although this Court has more recently described §2000e–2(a)(1) as originally creating only disparate-treatment liability, e.g., Ricci v. DeStefano , 557 U. S. 557 , 577 (2009), it was an open question at the time Hardison was decided whether §2000e–2(a)(1) also created disparate-impact liability, see, e.g., Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty , 434 U. S. 136 , 144 (1977); General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert , 429 U. S. 125 , 153–155 (1976) (Brennan, J., dissenting). In fact, both the employee and the EEOC in Hardison argued before this Court that the employer had violated §2000e–2(a)(1) under a disparate-impact theory. See Brief for Respondent 15, 25–26, and Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 33–36, 50, in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison , O. T. 1976, No. 75–1126 etc. In any event, the relevant language in Hardison is dictum. Because the employee’s termination had occurred before the 1972 amendment to Title VII’s definition of religion, Hardison applied the then-existing EEOC guideline—which also contained an “undue hardship” defense—not the amended statutory definition. 432 U. S., at 76, and n. 11. Hardison ’s comment about the effect of the 1972 amendment was thus entirely beside the point.

The following state regulations pages link to this page.

Carla Barrientos on What It Was Like to Sue Abercrombie & Fitch for Racial Discrimination

carla

The first time I went to Abercrombie & Fitch, I heard the store before I could see it. I was walking through the mall, shopping with my family, when I heard loud house music. B oom, boom . When we actually got to the store, I could smell Fierce cologne, and I saw the guys out front with no shirts on. That was my first dose of Abercrombie & Fitch.

Back then, for me, the brand represented cool. People noticed if you were wearing Abercrombie & Fitch. If you had an A&F shirt or jeans or even a belt, it was definitely not lost on anyone. It’s what everyone was wearing.

carla barrientos wearing a green tank top, low rise blue jeans, and a belt

One day I was shopping at the store when I was approached about working there. I had my little interview where I sat on a couch, and they asked me odd questions, nothing that really had to do with working at a clothing store. I had a friend who worked there, so when I started, I would walk around and chat with my friends and the managers. It wasn’t the kind of job where, if I saw a friend and wanted to have a conversation, anyone would stop me. It was fun; I’d float around, straighten clothes here and there. But then after a few shifts like that, my job started to change. Suddenly, my shifts were starting later, and I’d mostly be working when the mall was closed. Then it changed where, if our mall closed at 8 p.m., my shift would start at 8 p.m. There were a lot of cleaning duties, like vacuuming, dusting, cleaning the windows. No one had told me they were going to make this change or why they were doing it. It wasn’t what I’d been hired to do, so I knew something was going on. I just didn’t know what.

One day, I was venting to my friend who worked there, and I told her, “I want more day shifts. I don’t have any.” I had gone to the manager and asked for more, and he had told me there weren’t any to give. But my friend told me that wasn’t true. She said they’d scheduled her for 30 hours in one week, even though she said it was too much. She told me, “Let’s do this: You take my day shift. I’ll take your night shift.” Easy. Same amount of hours, we were getting the same pay rate. So I went to the manager and told him my friend was willing to swap. But he flat out told me, “We cannot do that. The shift you’re assigned is the shift you’re assigned.” It didn’t make sense. When I told my friend what happened, she said, “It’s probably because you’re Black. You’re the only Black person who works here. During the day shift, it’s all white.”

.css-1aear8u:before{margin:0 auto 0.9375rem;width:34px;height:25px;content:'';display:block;background-repeat:no-repeat;}.loaded .css-1aear8u:before{background-image:url(/_assets/design-tokens/elle/static/images/quote.fddce92.svg);} .css-1bvxk2j{font-family:SaolDisplay,SaolDisplay-fallback,SaolDisplay-roboto,SaolDisplay-local,Georgia,Times,serif;font-size:1.625rem;font-weight:normal;line-height:1.2;margin:0rem;margin-bottom:0.3125rem;}@media(max-width: 48rem){.css-1bvxk2j{font-size:2.125rem;line-height:1.1;}}@media(min-width: 40.625rem){.css-1bvxk2j{font-size:2.125rem;line-height:1.2;}}@media(min-width: 64rem){.css-1bvxk2j{font-size:2.25rem;line-height:1.1;}}@media(min-width: 73.75rem){.css-1bvxk2j{font-size:2.375rem;line-height:1.2;}}.css-1bvxk2j b,.css-1bvxk2j strong{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;}.css-1bvxk2j em,.css-1bvxk2j i{font-style:italic;font-family:inherit;}.css-1bvxk2j i,.css-1bvxk2j em{font-style:italic;} “I was so confused. How do you work at a place, but you’re not getting any hours?”

I knew what she was saying was true, but I didn’t want to face that reality. But after I asked my manager about swapping shifts, everything changed. I wasn’t on the schedule at all anymore. I was so confused. How do you work at a place, but you’re not getting any hours? I was told to just keep checking back, but when I wasn’t on the schedule for a couple months, I knew I didn’t work there anymore.

There were times I’d doubt myself. What did I do wrong? Was I not persistent enough about what I needed to do to change as an employee? I’d never want to be seen as someone with a poor work ethic. I’d never want to leave a job in bad standing. It was difficult to realize there wasn’t anything I could’ve done. It wasn’t because of something I could change; it was about who I was as a Black person. It was really painful. When I heard Abercrombie say it had an “all-American look,” I saw myself in that. I saw other people of color. I saw other folks who don’t fit what Abercrombie thought was “all-American.” It was difficult trying to process that.

blonde woman wearing an abercrombie tank top and holding an abercrombie shopping bag

Not long after I was fired, my sister told me there was a lawsuit being filed against Abercrombie & Fitch. I called this number connected to the case and left a message, briefly sharing what happened to me. Within 10 minutes, I got a call back, and they asked to hear my story and let me know I wasn’t alone. Sometimes I’d thought, maybe this is an isolated situation. It’s just this store or just this area. It was validating to hear I wasn’t alone, but it was scary to think this was a systemic practice, that t his was how they operated. I never thought a company would go this far to be so exclusionary. I’d been working since I was 15 years old, and I’d never had a situation like that in the workplace, where I was discriminated against and then subsequently fired.

The lawsuit was a long process. We had to answer so many questions, and we were being gaslighted by Abercrombie & Fitch’s lawyers into thinking, this wasn’t discrimination. You just didn’t have the “look,” and the look didn’t have anything to do with you being Black. The look had to do with attractiveness. It was grueling.

“We were being gaslighted into thinking, oh no, this wasn’t discrimination. You just didn’t have the ‘look,’ and the look didn’t have anything to do with you being Black .”

Then, after it was all done, it was difficult to hear the company had admitted no wrongdoing. But I really believed they would follow the consent decree and make those changes as a company. I thought that it’d be positive from here on out. It was very disappointing to see it was not done, and the oversight was really lacking. Our case helped, but it didn’t change the company.

When change happens, it has to be real. That means dismantling the problem and bringing in totally different people. After our lawsuit, everyone who was in charge when all these terrible things happened continued to run the company. But I think there’s an ability for second chances. And now, it seems like in the past few years, the company really has changed. It’s become popular again, and for good reason; it’s very inclusive. I’ve visited the website, and it’s beautiful. I see lots of different people represented, people of all sizes, shapes, colors. When I worked there, Abercrombie & Fitch thrived on exclusivity. If you were cool, you could be here, and if you were not, you go. Now it really seems that everyone has a seat at the table. Everyone can be here, and everyone is celebrated for who they are. That’s not a negative. It’s not something that downgrades a company or a group; it enhances it.

Now I dress a lot differently than I did back when I was 19. But I’ve heard Abercrombie & Fitch has some good clothes. I haven’t been back to the store yet. But maybe next time I’m in a mall, I’ll go.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Movies & TV 2023

true detective

Eva Longoria Joins 'Only Murders' Season 4

kiawentiio as katara and ian ousley as sokka in season 1 of avatar the last airbender

Will 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' Get a Season 2?

actress kiawentiio poses in a blue mermaid gown

Kiawentiio Grew Up with 'Avatar.' Twice.

expats with nicole kidman

When to Catch New Episodes of Expats

feud capote vs swans

How to Watch Feud: Capote Vs. The Swans

the zone of interest

A Streaming Guide to The Zone of Interest

The True Detective Finale, Explained

emily in paris l to r camille razat as camille, lucas bravo as gabriel, lucien laviscount as alfie, lily collins as emily, melia kreiling as sofia sideris in episode 305 of emily in paris cr stéphanie branchunetflix © 2022

'Emily in Paris' Season 4 Starts Filming in Jan.

kali reis and jodie foster in true detective night country

What's Going on in 'Night Country'?

celebrity sightings in new york city april 02, 2023

What We Know About ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’

a group of people posing for a photo

Did J.Lo Base Film Love Interests on Real Exes?

  • Skip to main content
  • Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Code Switch

  • School Colors
  • Perspectives

Code Switch

  • LISTEN & FOLLOW
  • Apple Podcasts
  • Google Podcasts
  • Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Supreme Court Looks At Abercrombie & Fitch's Hijab Discrimination Case

GD 2020

Samantha Elauf was not hired by the preppy retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a headscarf during her job interview, which the company said conflicted with its dress code. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP hide caption

Samantha Elauf was not hired by the preppy retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a headscarf during her job interview, which the company said conflicted with its dress code.

A closely watched case before the Supreme Court Wednesday could have big consequences for religious rights in the workplace. It involves Abercrombie & Fitch, the preppy, mall-based retailer, and a young Muslim woman who wore a headscarf to a job interview at the company seven years ago.

The case rests on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act , which makes it illegal to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." How the court decides the case could force us to rethink the balance between religious rights and employer responsibility.

But let's back up a bit. Abercrombie famously employs a "Look Policy" that lays out in exacting detail what its "sales models" can wear when they're helping customers or folding clothes on the sales floor. ( Por ejemplo .) Back in 2008, Samantha Elauf, who was 17 at the time, went in for an interview for a sales model position in one of Abercrombie's locations in Oklahoma. The assistant manager who spoke with Elauf gave her solid marks on the three "competencies" required for the job of model at one of the stores: "outgoing and promotes diversity," "sophistication and aspiration" and "appearance and sense of style." Elauf said that at the end of her interview, the store's assistant manager told her that they would call her in a few days about orientation.

But she never got a call. When Elauf asked a friend who worked at the store why she wasn't hired, her friend told her that the higher-ups said that her headscarf violated the chain's Look Policy.

Here's what Heather Cooke, the assistant store manager who interviewed Elauf, said happened next. "I think it says in the handbook you can't wear hats. So I was unclear," she told the court . "That's why I asked the store manager and the district manager."

She went on:

Cooke: And I asked [the district manager], you know, she wears the headscarf for religious reasons, I believe. And he said, "You still can't hire her because someone can come in and paint themselves green and say they were doing it for religious reasons, and we can't hire them." And I told him that I believed that she was Muslim, and that was a recognized religion. And that she was wearing it for religious reasons. And I believe that we should hire her. Q: And what did he say? Cooke: He told me not to hire her.

Elauf and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought a lawsuit, and a lower court sided with them. But Abercrombie won on appeal. As the case has wended its way through the court system, a few tricky questions have come to the fore: Did Abercrombie know that Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons, and does it matter? Was it Elauf's responsibility to bring up a connection between her faith and her headscarf during her interview, so that Abercrombie could figure out how to accommodate her? And how does all of this affect workplace discrimination laws for the rest of us?

Amy Howe of the indispensable SCOTUSblog laid out the arguments both sides are making to the Supreme Court Wednesday.

"Instead, [the EEOC] argues an employer can't refuse to hire someone based on its understanding of her religious practices if that understanding is correct — as it was in this case, when the assistant manager understood that Elauf was wearing the scarf because she is a Muslim, even if Elauf did not specifically say so. "Otherwise, the government complains, employers could easily get around the anti-discrimination laws as long as they aren't certain about an applicant's religious practices. And, it adds, an employer is often in a better position than a would-be employee to know its rules and whether they might conflict with an employee's religious practices."

Howe lays out Abercrombie's argument that putting the burden on employers is tricky:

"How, it asks, are employers supposed to know whether an applicant will want or need an exemption from their rules? This is particularly difficult, it notes, when the anti-discrimination laws protect all would-be applicants, even if their religions aren't well known or the members of that religion don't necessarily agree on what their faith requires. "Moreover, Abercrombie adds, an employer isn't supposed to ask a job applicant about her religion at all. Even the EEOC's earlier statements had previously acknowledged this difficulty, it points out, by requiring a job applicant to ask the employer to work with her to accommodate her religious beliefs."

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Abercrombie's Look Policy has landed it in a headscarf-related lawsuit. In 2008, a woman named Halla Banafa claimed that a manager at Abercrombie's Milpitas, Calif., location didn't hire her because of her headscarf. And Umme-Hani Khan , who worked at one of the company's Hollister stores in San Francisco, was fired in 2010 after a district manager visiting her store ordered her to remove her hijab.

After Abercrombie settled both of those cases in 2013, it changed its Look Policy to allow employees to wear headscarves , but it's not clear how those settlements affect Elauf's case. We don't know when the Supreme Court's decision for the Elauf case will come down, but see the update below for a recap of what happened in the high court Wednesday.

Update at 8:20 p.m. ET: The Arguments

After hearing the arguments in court Wednesday, NPR's Nina Totenberg says several justices suggested that, during a job interview, the employer could say something like, "We have a no-beards policy, or a no-headscarf policy; would you have a problem with that?"

Here's her full report for All Things Considered on what the justices asked — and how the lawyers answered.

Newsletter Sign Up

Email Address

Your browser is outdated, it may not render this page properly, please upgrade .

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

Closed Expands Expression

  • Key details

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression Non-verbal Expression
  • Date of Decision June 1, 2015
  • Outcome Remanded for Decision in Accordance with Ruling, Monetary Damages / Fines
  • Case Number 135 S.Ct. 2028
  • Region & Country United States, North America
  • Judicial Body Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law Civil Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes Religious Freedom
  • Tags Discrimination

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case summary and outcome.

After Abercrombie & Fitch did not hire Samantha Elauf because her religious headscarf violated the company’s dress code, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie. The Supreme Court of the United States rejected Abercrombie’s arguments that it had not violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because Elauf had not shown Abercrombie’s “actual knowledge” of her need for accommodation, as the need for an accommodation need only be a motivating factor in an employer’s decision.

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Abercrombie), a retail clothing company, did not hire prospective employee Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf known as a hijab. Her headscarf, as well as other “caps,” violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy” governing employee dress.

On Elauf’s behalf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a claim that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court found in favor of the EEOC, awarding Elauf damages. The Tenth Circuit Court later reversed by granting Abercrombie summary judgment, holding that liability for failure to accommodate only attaches after the prospective employee request accommodation from the employer.

Decision Overview

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer cannot decline to hire a prospective employee in an attempt to avoid accommodating the prospective employee’s religious practice, assuming the employer could accommodate without undue hardship. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether Title VII’s limitation on employers is only triggered when the prospective employee has notified the employer of the need for accommodation.

Abercrombie argued that a prospective employee must show the employer’s “actual knowledge” of the need for accommodation before arguing there was disparate treatment. The Court rejected this argument, instead saying that the prospective employee need only show that the employer’s hiring decision was motivated by the need for accommodation. “The disparate-treatment provision forbids employers to: (1) ‘fail … to hire’ an applicant (2) ‘because of’ (3) ‘such individual’s … religion’ (which includes his religious practice).”[1]

Because both parties concede that Elauf wore her headscarf as part of her “religious practice,” the Court only needed to evaluate if Abercrombie had failed to hire her “because of” this practice. The Court noted that Title VII does not have a knowledge requirement, unlike other antidiscrimination statutes. Instead, certain motives are prohibited irrespective of the employer’s knowledge.

Abercrombie argued that parties must raise failure to accommodate claims as disparate-impact, rather than disparate-treatment. The Court rejected this argument because Title VII defines “religion” to include both belief and practice. Thus, religious practices are protected and must be accommodated. Abercrombie also argued that neutral polices cannot qualify as “intentional discrimination.” However, as the Court pointed out, Title VII bestows upon employers an affirmative obligation to accommodate and not to refuse or fail to hire an employee because of his or her religious practice, rather than “mere neutrality with regard to religious practices.” Therefore, in an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case for a judgment in accord with its ruling.

[1]-slip op. at 4.

Decision Direction

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The Supreme Courts decision expanded religious expression because it affirmed that a victim of discrimination need not show actual knowledge of the need for a religious accommodation. An applicant must only show that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision not to hire the prospective employee, not that the employer actually knew of his or her need. This requires employers to accommodate all religions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Global Perspective

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence.

Tit. VII, codified at § 2000e.

  • U.S., Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013)

Case Significance

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

United States Supreme Court cases are binding precedent upon all lower courts in the U.S.

Official Case Documents

Official case documents:.

  • Supreme Court Opinion http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf

Amicus Briefs and Other Legal Authorities

  • Amicus and Party Briefs on SCOTUSblog Docket http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-abercrombie-fitch-stores-inc/

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

  • Simran Jeet Singh, A Muslim woman beat Abercrombie & Fitch, Wash. Post (June 1, 2015) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/01/a-muslim-woman-beat-abercrombie-fitch-why-her-supreme-court-victory-is-a-win-for-all-americans/
  • Ariane de Vogue, SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch, CNN (June 1, 2015) http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-abercrombie-fitch-headscarf/
  • Marianne Levine, Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie in hijab case, Politico (June 1, 2015) http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ambercrombie-fitch-hijab-case-supreme-court-ruling-118492.html
  • Dave Jamieson, Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie & Fitch In Discrimination Case, Huffington Post (June 1, 2015) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/supreme-court-abercrombie_n_7464534.html

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback

Related Posts

Freedom of association and assembly / protests, religious freedom.

April 20, 2017

The Ministry of Justice v. Jehovah’s Witnesses Management Center in Russia

Russian Federation

Extremist Speech

Religious Freedom

April 7, 2020

Vetticad and Dorsey v. State of Rajasthan

  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled

By Steven Greenhouse

  • Nov. 17, 2004

Abercrombie & Fitch, one of the nation's trendiest retailers, settled race and sex discrimination lawsuits yesterday, agreeing to alter its well-known collegiate, all-American -- and largely white -- image by adding more blacks, Hispanics and Asians to its marketing materials.

After a federal judge in San Francisco approved the class-action settlement yesterday, the two sides announced an agreement that calls for Abercrombie & Fitch to pay $40 million to several thousand minority and female plaintiffs. Abercrombie also agreed to hire 25 diversity recruiters and a vice president for diversity and to pursue benchmarks so that its hiring and promotion of minorities and women reflect its applicant pool.

In an unusual step, the settlement calls for Abercrombie to increase diversity not just in hiring and promotions, but also in its advertisements and catalogs, which have long featured models who were overwhelmingly white and who seemed to have stepped off the football field or out of fraternities or sororities. Plaintiffs' lawyers said they insisted that the company agree to add more diversity to its marketing materials so as not to discourage minorities from applying for jobs.

In another unusual move, the settlement requires Abercrombie to stop focusing on predominantly white fraternities and sororities in its recruitment. Many Abercrombie workers have said that company employees were often told to go to college campuses and to urge good-looking fraternity and sorority members to apply for jobs.

When Abercrombie was sued in June 2003, several Hispanic, black and Asian plaintiffs complained that when they applied for jobs, they were steered not to sales positions out front, but to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs, stocking and cleaning up.

"Abercrombie had a back-of-the-bus mentality," said Kimberly West-Faulcon, Western regional counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "Now instead of hiring them in the back of the store, they will have diversity recruiters. It sends a message to young people that we're moving past this kind of thing."

Bill Lann Lee, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer and former director of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said Abercrombie had refused to hire many minority students who had impressive work and school records. He added that the percentages of minority and women managers at Abercrombie were far below industry averages.

"We're talking about discrimination being visited on some of the best and the brightest within their community," Mr. Lee said.

He applauded the settlement, approved yesterday by Judge Susan Illston of Federal District Court. "The import of this settlement is that a major American company has stepped forward and become a model," Mr. Lee said.

Abercrombie, which did not admit guilt, agreed to hire a monitor, to provide diversity training to all managers who do hiring and to revise performance evaluations for managers, making progress in diversity goals a factor in bonuses and compensation. The settlement also called for $7.2 million in lawyers' fees.

In a statement, Mike Jeffries, Abercrombie's chairman, said: "We have, and always have had, no tolerance for discrimination. We decided to settle this suit because we felt that a long, drawn-out dispute would have been harmful to the company and distracting to management."

Several industry analysts said the settlement would help Abercrombie's marketing. The company has 700 stores and 22,000 employees and had $1.7 billion in sales last year.

"Their profile, their image is going to evolve," said Robin S. Murchison, a retail analyst with Jefferies & Company. "It will still be the cool kids. You can walk onto any Ivy League campus and there's a lot more going on than Waspy-looking guys and girls. I think they'll tap into that. I actually think it will work to their advantage."

In an interview yesterday, Carla Grubb, a 21-year-old black plaintiff who is a student at California State University at Bakersfield, said that after she applied for a sales job at an Abercrombie store, she was hired to dust, clean windows and vacuum.

"I was always doing cleaning -- they said I was a good window washer," said Ms. Grubb, who later landed a job elsewhere repairing computers. "I should have received the same treatment as everybody else. It made me feel bad. No one should be judged by the color of their skin."

Eduardo Gonzalez, the lead plaintiff and a senior chemistry major at Stanford University, said that when he applied to an Abercrombie store in Santa Clara, Calif., managers urged him to apply for the overnight stocking crew. Noting that his application was rejected, he said that when a store manager interviewed him and 13 other applicants at once, the manager overwhelmingly favored the two white applicants.

"I love this settlement," Mr. Gonzalez said. "It's a landmark thing for an American icon. They were portraying this image that all-American is all white. That's not the case."

Thomas Lennox, Abercrombie's director of communications, said that with the settlement, "we're bringing this issue to closure as well as implementing policies and practices that will ensure greater diversity throughout our organization."

  • Stand Up for Free Enterprise

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status

Docket Number

Oral Argument Date

February 25, 2015

Lower Court Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Questions Presented

Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a "religious observance and practice" only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer's actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from applicant or employee.

Case Updates

U.S. Supreme Court upholds EEOC workplace discrimination opinion

June 01, 2015

In its opinion , the U.S. Supreme Court held that to succeed in a disparate treatment claim, an applicant must demonstrate only that a need for accomodation was a motivating factor in the employer's hiring decision, not that the employer had knowledge of the need.

The case was reversed and remanded to the Tenth Circuit.

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief

January 28, 2015

In the coalition brief joined by the National Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber urged the Supreme Court to reject the EEOC’s novel argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch . The EEOC argued that, when an employer refuses to hire a job applicant because her religious practice violates a neutral workplace policy, that refusal is intentional religious discrimination, which can give rise to compensatory and punitive damages. The Chamber brief argued that intentional discrimination under Title VII, and the compensatory and punitive damages that go with it, have long been limited to discrimination that is motivated by a protected trait, not the application a neutral policy that is discriminatory in “effect.”

Melissa Arbus Sherry of Latham & Watkins LLP represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

The Chamber filed this brief jointly with the National Federation of Independent Business.

Case Documents

  • Cert. Petition -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Religious Organizations Amici Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Brief in Opposition -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Reply Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Petitioner Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Umme-Hani Khan Amicus Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Amicus Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • American Jewish Committee, et al. Amici Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • American-Arab Anti-Discirmination Committee, et al. -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, et al. -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Amicus Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Fifteen Religious and Civil Rights Organizations Amici Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • States Amici Brief -- City of Los Angeles v. Patel (U.S. Supreme Court)_0.pdf
  • Council on American-Islamic Relations Amicus Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Respondent Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Equal Employment Advisory Council -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • U.S. Chamber and NFIB Amici Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores.pdf
  • National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. Amici Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Cato Institute Amicus Brief -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Reply Brief for Petitioner -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Argument Transcript -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Opinion -- EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
  • Discrimination
  • Search all cases

Recent case activity by issue

  • Administrative Law and Government Litigation
  • Arbitration
  • Capital Markets and Corporate Law
  • Class Actions and Mass Actions
  • Energy and Environment
  • False Claims Act
  • Federal Preemption and Commerce Clause
  • Jurisdiction and Procedure
  • Labor and Employment
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Tort and Products Liability

Abercrombie & Fitch's rise, fall, and comeback. 'We are no longer a jeans and T-shirt brand.'

  • Abercrombie & Fitch was founded as a store for outdoor gear in the late 1800s.
  • It became hugely popular with 2000s teens until changing tastes and controversy sent it into decline.
  • The retailer has recently found a new cohort of fans: Gen Z shoppers.

Insider Today

If you were a teen in the 2000s, chances are you either shopped at Abercrombie & Fitch or felt too excluded to set foot in the store. 

The 130-year-old retailer may have gotten its start catering to fishing and hunting enthusiasts, but by the late 1990s, the brand bore little resemblance to its outdoorsy origins. Its dimly lit, heavily scented stores — known primarily for their shirtless male models and narrow range of sizes — presented a brand of cool that seemed off-limits to anyone who wasn't thin, white, and well-off. 

While Abercrombie may once have been the epitome of a certain form of cool, the brand fell on hard times in the 2010s due to a mix of changing public sentiment and numerous controversies and lawsuits, including one that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In recent years, the brand has seen a resurgence in popularity thanks to a new, more inclusive image: it revamped its stores, expanded its size range, and made its pricing more approachable. 

And these changes are paying off: Abercrombie & Fitch's sales continue to exceed Wall Street estimates. according to its 2023 third quarter report. The brand brought in $1.06 billion in revenue — outpacing Wall Street estimates of $981 million in revenue . Same store sales rose 16% year-over-year. 

Here's how Abercrombie & Fitch rose to fame, almost lost it all, then mounted a comeback. 

Abercrombie Co. was founded in 1892 as an outdoor retailer.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Founder David Abercrombie opened the original Abercrombie store to sell camping, fishing, and hunting gear. 

In 1904, a lawyer named Ezra Fitch purchased a large share of the company and was named co-founder — the company became Abercrombie & Fitch.

By 1910, David Abercrombie had left, and the company had opened a large department store.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

The 12-story department store on Madison Avenue sold both men's and women's clothing, in addition to housing a shooting range and golf school. Abercrombie & Fitch also started a mail-order catalog, mailing out 50,000 copies to consumers.

According to the Netflix documentary "White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch," the brand's reputation in the early 1900s was as a store for stuffy, WASP-y sportsmen. Amelia Earhart and Theodore Roosevelt wore Abercrombie, and when aviator Charles Lindbergh made the first solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927, he wore Abercrombie too . 

In a 1931 issue of The New Yorker , author E.B. White wrote that Abercrombie had "the most gaped-at window in town. Displays all the clothes men want to wear all the time and don't." 

Abercrombie survived the Great Depression and continued to grow, expanding to new states. But by the middle of the century, sales had slumped. Abercrombie filed for bankruptcy in 1977.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In 1978, the brand was acquired by Oshman's Sporting Goods, a Texas-based retailer.

A decade later, it was sold to Limited Brands — now known as simply L Brands — the retail conglomerate run by Leslie Wexner. Wexner was widely considered a retailing genius and called "the Merlin of the Mall" due to his success at building chains like The Limited, Victoria's Secret, and Bath & Body Works. (Wexner has since cut ties with L Brands and has been scrutinized for his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein .)

After being acquired by L Brands, Abercrombie moved its headquarters from New York to Ohio where it built a massive campus complete with a fake retail store, according to "White Hot." 

In the 1990s, Wexner hired Mike Jeffries as CEO of Abercrombie and tasked him with building the brand as it came to be known in its early-2000s heyday.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Jeffries turned his attention to cornering the teen retail market, making it the brand's mission to appeal to American teens.

"We knew we wanted to be the coolest brand for the 18 to 22-year-olds," Cindy Smith-Maglione, the former vice president of merchandising, said in "White Hot." 

Abercrombie hired fashion photographer Bruce Weber to shoot ad campaigns and store photos, and it's his aesthetic that defined the company's brand in the '90s and 2000s.

Jeffries' formula for success mixed sex appeal — particularly male sex appeal — with the brand's century-old heritage. And the formula worked.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

The Abercrombie look married preppy separates with the overt sexiness popular in the late '90s and early 2000s: Skirts were short, jeans were low-rise, and tank tops were tight, but everything was portrayed as "all-American," a particular obsession of Jeffries', according to the "White Hot" documentary.

In the Weber-shot ad campaigns, male models were often photographed shirtless, either alone or in groups, while female models were often relegated to supporting roles. In the early days, nearly everyone was white. 

Abercrombie's stores were a central component to the image the brand was looking to sell.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Abercrombie stores weren't like any other mall brand. Rather than showcase its offerings on mannequins in store windows, Abercrombie covered the windows with shutters and displayed only a large photo of an Abercrombie model at the entrance — if shoppers wanted to see what the brand offered, they'd have to come inside. At many stores, shirtless male employees would greet shoppers as they entered.

Once in the store, shoppers were greeted with dim lighting, loud music, and the overwhelming scent of the brand's "Fierce" cologne. 

"Every piece of Abercrombie was by design, by Mike's design. The stores, the product, the whole thing, he would sign off on," Smith-Maglione, the former merchandising vice president, said in "White Hot." 

Abercrombie went public on the New York Stock Exchange in 1996.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

When Jeffries took over, Abercrombie & Fitch had 36 stores and was doing $50 million in sales. By 1996, the company had about 125 stores and $335 million in sales, Bloomberg reported . 

Two years later, Abercrombie launched its childrens' brand, and in 2000, the company opened its subsidiary, Hollister, which catered to teens but with a California-inspired influence.

Abercrombie was everywhere, and as of 1999, was a certified cultural phenomenon thanks to the song "Summer Girls" by LFO: "I like girls that wear Abercrombie & Fitch," the lyrics went. "I'd take her if I had one wish." 

But by 2002, some cracks began to show in Abercrombie's armor when the brand was accused of racism and discrimination over its product assortment.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Following the release of multiple racist t-shirts depicting Asian stereotypes, Asian Americans across the US protested outside Abercrombie stores, demanding that the brand stop selling the graphic tees.

In response, the company pulled the products from its shelves and burned them, according to "White Hot." 

But t-shirts were just the beginning: a year later, Abercrombie was under fire over its hiring practices.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In 2003, a group of former and prospective employees filed a class-action lawsuit against Abercrombie, claiming that the company refused to hire them or fired them on the basis of their race. 

According to "White Hot," Abercrombie had a handbook that dictated what employees should look like down to their underwear, jewelry, and hair. The handbook prohibited dreadlocks and gold chains and mandated a look Abercrombie described as "natural," "American," and "classic."

Former employees said in the documentary that corporate dictated that store staff be attractive and often valued looks over abilities. When Jeffries, the CEO, would make unannounced store visits — known as "blitzes" — the stores would try to ensure that their best-looking employees were working that day, even keeping some workers on staff just for those visits.

Abercrombie settled the class-action suit in 2004 without admitting any wrongdoing. It agreed to pay more than $40 million and signed a consent decree agreeing to change its hiring practices and hire a chief diversity officer. 

Abercrombie was sued again in 2012 after a pilot claimed Jeffries had some unusual requests for staff aboard his private jet.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In 2012, an age discrimination suit filed by a former pilot revealed the "Aircraft Standards" for Abercrombie's executive jet. 

The pilot claimed that crew were required to wear Abercrombie polo shirts, sandals, and underwear, and that men had to wear the retailer's famous cologne. Staff were also required to wear black gloves when handling silverware and white gloves when setting the table; had to answer every question and request with "no problem"; and had to play a specific song for passengers on return flights.

Abercrombie settled the pilot's suit without admitting fault. 

Around the same time, Jeffries was in hot water over comments he'd made years earlier where he openly admitted to Abercrombie intentionally excluding certain consumers.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Jeffries said in a 2006 interview with Salon that Abercrombie made clothes for the "cool kids."

"In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids," he told Salon. "Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely."

Jeffries added that the store only hired good-looking people because they "attract other good-looking people." 

But it wasn't until 2013 that those comments went viral, sparking boycotts and petitions and forcing Jeffries to publish a semi-apology. 

"While I believe this 7-year-old, resurrected quote has been taken out of context, I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense," he wrote in a Facebook post.  

That same year, the brand finally began to offer larger sizes .

But by that time, Abercrombie's sales were already beginning to wane.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

By 2014, same-store sales had declined for 11 straight quarters . Two subsidiary brands, Ruehl No.925 and Gilly Hicks, were shut down only a few years after launch, and Abercrombie had begun shuttering some of its mall stores.  ( Gilly Hicks was later resurrected and still exists today.) 

The slow sales were due in part to the company's controversies, but also due to shifts among the younger demographic. Teens had grown tired of logo t-shirts and hoodies and started opting for cheaper, fast-fashion brands like Forever 21. Nike took over  as teens' aspirational brand. 

At the same time, the power of the mall was beginning to shrink: by 2014, the number of teens visiting malls had dropped by 30% compared to the early 2000s. 

Abercrombie became embroiled in another lawsuit in the late 2000s that would make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In 2008, an Oklahoma teen named Samantha Elauf applied for a job at her local Abercrombie store and was recommended for hire. But the store later said it couldn't hire her because she wore a black headscarf, which the company said violated its policy that salespeople couldn't wear caps at work. 

In response, Elauf, a Muslim, filed a religious-discrimination lawsuit. While Abercrombie had settled other lawsuits in the past, this time, it dug its heels in and allowed the case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court. 

In 2015, the court ruled 8-1 against Abercrombie. Its opinion stated that religion was a protected characteristic and must be accommodated.

In late 2014, Jeffries retired as Abercrombie's CEO.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Jeffries retired with an exit package worth $27 million . 

"It has been an honor to lead this extraordinarily talented group of people," Jeffries said in a statement at the time. "I believe now is the right time for new leadership to take the company forward in the next phase of its development."

A committee formed by three senior executives and the Abercrombie board chairman managed the company until a successor could be selected.

Following Jeffries' departure, Abercrombie attempted to shift away from its sex-heavy, logo-heavy past.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

The company decided to phase out large logos , replacing them with smaller, more subtle designs and putting leftover logo apparel on clearance .  

In 2015, Abercrombie got rid of its shirtless male greeters and overhauled its appearance policies for sales clerks, though there were still some rules in place, including "no extreme make-up or jewelry." 

Also gone were the dimly lit stores and pulsating music — the stores became brighter and free of the overpowering scent of cologne. 

Even the ubiquitous shopping bags, which featured a bare male torso, were nixed in favor of a subtler logo bag. 

Fran Horowitz took over as CEO in 2017.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Horowitz had joined Abercrombie in 2014 from Ann Taylor Loft, working as brand president of Hollister and as president and chief merchandising officer for Abercrombie & Fitch.

Under Horowitz, sales began to improve. Abercrombie closed down unprofitable locations while investing in stores that worked. Between 2010 and the 2018 fiscal year, the company closed 450 stores and remodeled others in an effort to reconnect with consumers.

Abercrombie also refocused design and marketing, shifting toward a more mature look and nixing the brand's super-preppy aesthetic. The company also began targeting consumers between 18 to 25 rather than young teens.

By the end of 2018, with improved sales and a new aesthetic, the brand was ready for a comeback.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In November 2018, Abercrombie was on a positive trajectory, reporting its fourth consecutive quarter of positive same-store sales growth that sent its shares soaring . 

The brand closed 40 stores — mostly its kids stores — while planning to open 40 new locations with a more boutique-like feel. 

But it was the clothes that really stood out: Abercrombie had started offering similar styles and trends to higher-end brands like Reformation at a much more affordable price point. The product assortment became "more sophisticated, is more on-trend, and better reflects what modern consumers want," Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, wrote in a note to clients at the time. 

That year, Abercrombie exceeded $1 billion in annual digital sales for the first time in its history, according to the company.

"We are not the Abercrombie & Fitch that you once knew," Horowitz said during investor day that April .

Like other retailers, the pandemic brought about change and uncertainty for Abercrombie, but the brand outperformed.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Abercrombie saw a 43% increase in digital net sales in 2020, despite the challenges of the pandemic. The company credited that success to data analytics and learning more about their customers' needs, even during a time when the apparel industry was in a state of upheaval. 

That strong performance continued in 2021, despite the inventory delays many retailers experienced, particularly over the holiday season. In its full-year results posted in March 2022, Abercrombie reported $3.7 billion in net sales . 

Still, Abercrombie has been pummeled by inflation, which caused a dip in sales in 2022.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In the second quarter of 2022, Abercrombie said that the brand was experiencing the impact of inflation , which has caused shoppers, especially lower-income shoppers, to buy less apparel. 

Though Abercrombie delivered its highest second-quarter sales since 2015, Hollister saw "a greater than anticipated impact from inflation" that resulted in low conversion and smaller basket sizes, Horowitz said in a statement. Abercrombie lowered its sales outlook for the remainder of the year, causing shares to drop sharply . 

But Abercrombie wasn't alone: other retailers — including Gap, Macy's, and Nordstrom — reported similar uncertainty in 2022. 

Part of the brand's strategy has been a pull away from malls, where Abercrombie historically thrived. Instead, the company is using online shopping transactions to determine where its customers are and opening stores closer to them.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In Chicago, for example, the company closed a large store in the Water Tower Place mall and opened a new, boutique-style shop   in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood in 2021. A large swath of customers in that area had been making online purchases, according to Bloomberg . 

"Specifically with our Abercrombie & Fitch brand, that consumer is maybe going to the mall a little bit less," Samir Desai, Abercrombie's chief digital and technology officer, told Bloomberg. "So that really favors neighborhood mall streets where there might be a fitness experience or something else that they're engaging in and that's taking them there."

During its most recent quarter, Abercrombie surprised Wall Street by reporting a net profit of $16.6 million, after posting a loss of nearly that much during the same period a year earlier. It also boosted its full-year sales outlook. First-quarter sales of its namesake brand grew 14% year-over-year.   

The brand is continuing to open new stores and update their interior designs to attract millennial and Gen Z shoppers.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In Abercrombie & Fitch's newly opened and renovated stores, there are virtually no traces of the retailer's early aughts store era. There are no shirtless Abercrombie model posters, dark lighting, club music, and suffocating cologne that used to be trademarks of the Abercrombie & Fitch experience. Instead, the stores are designed with bright lighting, white and cream paint, and elegant touches, such as wood paneling and glass chandeliers. 

The brand's clothing line is attracting Gen Z shoppers with linen suits and satin gowns.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

The brand has traded its early 2000s logo-emblazoned T-shirts and polos for a range of formal and floral dresses, suit sets, and sophisticated knit polos. And Gen Z shoppers are flocking to stores: Gen Z's spending at Abercrombie was up by 44% from January to June, according to a study by Earnest Analytics. 

The rebrand is paying off: Abercrombie & Fitch is defying sales expectations.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

The retailer earned $935.3 million in revenue, according to its 2023 fiscal second quarter report which ended July 29. The retailer's revenue shattered Wall Street estimates of $842.4 million in revenue. The brand originally thought net sales for the entire year would grow between 2% to 4%. But due to the quarter's performance, the brand bumped up its expectations: Abercrombie now estimates net sales will grow 10% for the year. 

Nine years after his exit, Jeffries was accused of exploiting men for sex

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

In October, a two-year BBC investigation  found that Jeffries and his British partner Matthew Smith were behind organized events that recruited men and involved sex acts. Some of the men who were paid to attend these events alleged they were exploited or abused. Others told the outlet that opportunities to model for Abercrombie & Fitch were tied to their participation in sexual activities. 

Abercrombie & Fitch told the news outlet that it was "appalled and disgusted" by the allegations.

Matthew Wilson contributed to an earlier version of this article.

Abercrombie's performance continues to exceed Wall Street's expectations

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

The company continues to blow past analysts' expectations. Abercrombie brought in $1.06 billion in revenue in the third quarter, compared to Wall Street estimates of $981 million in revenue. Net sales were up 20% and same-store sales rose 16% year-over-year. The company expects net sales growth to reach up to 14% from an earlier projection of 10%.

In an earnings call, CEO Fran Horowitz told investors that while denim continues to be an important part of the business, the company has seen strong conversion in non-denim pants. "We are really focused on the fact that bottoms are much more than denim today," she said. 

Furthermore, Horowitz highlighted that several categories have led to the company's tenth consecutive quarter of growth. "The playbook is working," she said. "We are no longer a jeans and T-shirt brand. We certainly are a lifestyle brand today, and what's driving this win is several categories. "

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

  • Main content
  • International edition
  • Australia edition
  • Europe edition

Riam Dean outside the employment tribunal

Disabled student sues Abercrombie & Fitch for discrimination

Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has been accused of "hiding" a sales assistant in a stockroom at a London outlet because her prosthetic arm didn't fit with its "look policy", a tribunal has heard.

Riam Dean, a 22-year-old law student from Greenford, west London, claims she was removed from the shop floor at the company's Savile Row branch when management became aware of her disability.

Dean, who was born without her left forearm and has worn a prosthetic limb since she was three months old, is suing for disability discrimination after she was left "personally diminished [and] humiliated" when she refused to remove her cardigan at work last summer.

"I had been bullied out of my job," she said. "It was the lowest point I had ever been in my life."

It is believed Dean is seeking around £25,000 in compensation for her experiences under what she described as A&F's "oppressive regime". Her legal team would not comment on the sum.

Dean claims that when she told A&F about her disability after getting the job, the firm agreed she could wear a white cardigan to cover the link between her prosthesis and her upper arm. But shortly afterwards, she was told she could not work on the shop floor unless she took off the cardigan as she was breaking the firm's "look policy". She told the tribunal that someone in the A&F head office suggested she stay in the stockroom "until the winter uniform arrives".

The "look policy" stipulates that all employees "represent Abercrombie & Fitch with natural, classic American style consistent with the company's brand" and "look great while exhibiting individuality". Workers must wear a "clean, natural, classic hairstyle" and have nails which extend "no more than a quarter inch beyond the tip of the finger".

Dean said today in her evidence: "A female A&F manager used the 'look policy' and the wearing of the cardigan as an excuse to hide me away in the stockroom.

"I knew then that I was being treated different and unfairly because of my disability. Her words pierced right through the armour of 20 years of building up personal confidence about me as a person, and that I am much more than a girl with only one arm … "

Dean said the "look policy" was inconsistent: "Having visible tattoos breaks the 'look policy' and yet I've seen a worker with a tribal arm tattoo which is very noticeable and yet Abercrombie allowed him to work on the shop floor. Clearly their reasoning goes far deeper and I'm sure it's not the cardigan which breaks the look policy, it's the disabled label which does," she said.

She added: "I am born with a character trait I am unable to change, thus to be singled out for a minor aesthetic 'flaw' made me question my worth as a human being.

"Abercrombie taught me that beauty lies in perfection, but I would tell them that beauty lies in diversity, for I would rather live with my imperfection than to exude such ugliness in their blatant display of eugenics in policies and practices."

Her friend Genevieve Reed told the tribunal that Dean had changed since working at A&F, and had "started to question whether this was just the first of a series of obstacles she would come up against in her life due to her disability".

Medical evidence presented to the tribunal revealed Dean had undergone a psychiatric assessment to support an application for disability support funding several months before starting work at A&F last May. The psychiatrist described her as "socially isolated", with an anxiety disorder that reached "phobic levels" relating to a fear of travelling on public transport.

A&F's barrister, Akash Nawbatt, suggested that someone with such a phobia would not be able to work in a noisy shop, and suggested that she may have exaggerated her medical problems.

He also repeatedly accused Dean of exaggerating the effect her time at A&F had had on her, and suggested she had lied on the claim form she submitted to the tribunal.

Under questioning from the three tribunal judges, Dean admitted that an element of the original claim form was false. This stated that she had been repeatedly asked by A&F management to remove her prosthetic arm, but Dean said that this had not been the case, and implied it was a mistake.

The tribunal continues.

  • Discrimination at work
  • Retail industry
  • Work & careers
  • Employment tribunals
  • Employment law

Most viewed

What's Hot

Supreme court rules against abercrombie & fitch in discrimination case.

Dave Jamieson

Labor Reporter, HuffPost

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday that retailer Abercrombie & Fitch may have violated workplace discrimination law when it turned down a Muslim job applicant because she wore a hijab, even though her religious beliefs never came up in the interview.

Samantha Elauf, the job seeker at the center of the case, applied for a sales position at an Abercrombie children's store in Oklahoma in 2008. Despite her high marks in the interview, Elauf didn't land the job because her headscarf ran afoul of Abercrombie's employee "look policy," which bars hats and promotes the retailer's preppy brand. Elauf sued with the help of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Civil rights law requires that employers accommodate workers' religious beliefs in the workplace, and forbids them from firing or not hiring someone because of those beliefs. But Abercrombie argued that it couldn't have known to make such an accommodation because Elauf, who was 17 at the time, never requested one.

The majority of justices didn't buy that argument, reversing an earlier appeals ruling in Abercrombie's favor. They said that whether or not Abercrombie had firm knowledge of Elauf's need for an accommodation was not relevant -- only whether her headscarf was a "motivating factor" in their decision not to hire her. (In Elauf's case, an Abercrombie manager had correctly assumed that Elauf was Muslim, and that she would regularly wear the hijab on the job.)

"Motive and knowledge are separate concepts," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority . "[A]n employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate [the law] even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed."

The ruling sends Elauf's case back to the lower court for further consideration. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent, penning an opinion that partially concurred with the majority.

In a statement, Abercrombie noted that the Supreme Court ruling did not find that the company discriminated against Elauf, only that Elauf can pursue her claim in court. The company said it is considering its next steps in the case, and that it is committed to "an open-minded and tolerant workplace environment."

"We have made significant enhancements to our store associate policies, including the replacement of the 'look policy' with a new dress code that allows associates to be more individualistic; changed our hiring practices to not consider attractiveness; and changed store associates' titles from 'Model' to 'Brand Representative' to align with their new customer focus," the company said.

Abercrombie's lawyers argued that a ruling in favor of Elauf would pressure companies to ask or make assumptions about job seekers' religious beliefs -- a dicey proposition, they said, since employers aren't supposed to inquire about a worker's religion. But the EEOC said that a job applicant like Elauf shouldn't have to bear the full burden of raising the possibility of a religious accommodation, especially since the employer would know best whether there may be a conflict with company policy.

David Lopez, general counsel for the EEOC, praised the ruling in a statement Monday.

"At its root, this case is about defending the quintessentially American principles of religious freedom and tolerance,” Lopez said. "This decision is a victory for our increasingly diverse society and we applaud Samantha Elauf’s courage and tenacity in pursuing this matter."

Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative wing, signaled his leaning on the case during oral arguments in February , when he raised a hypothetical situation that, by his own admission, sounded "like a joke."

"So the first is a Sikh man wearing a turban. The second is a Hasidic man wearing a hat. The third is a Muslim woman wearing a niqab. The fourth is a Catholic nun in a habit," Alito said. "Now, do you think ... that those people have to say, 'We just want to tell you, we're dressed this way for a religious reason. We're not just trying to make a fashion statement'?"

Alito said there were ways for an employer to address the issue without directly asking a job applicant about his or her religion. In the hypothetical case of someone who appears to be Middle Eastern and who wears a long beard, he asked, "Why can't the employers just simply say, 'We have a "look policy" that doesn't permit beards. Can you comply with that policy?'"

Abercrombie has been sued at least two other times over headscarves -- once by an applicant who, like Elauf, said she was denied a job because of hers, and once by an employee who lost her job after being ordered to remove hers. Abercrombie settled both of those cases and then changed its policy to allow for headscarves, though it continued to defend its actions in the Elauf case.

In briefs filed with the court, Abercrombie had the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , while Elauf drew support from civil, religious and gay rights groups.

This story has been updated with comment from Abercrombie and the EEOC.

Support HuffPost

Our 2024 coverage needs you.

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to having well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

We cannot do this without your help. Support our newsroom by contributing as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Before You Go

Chief Justice John Roberts

Supreme Court Justices

Popular in the community, from our partner, more in politics.

abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Case Heard by Supreme Court

.css-1d0dlne-HeadlineTextBlock >*{display:inline-block;} .css-1plpptc-HeadlineTextBlock{margin:0;color:rgba(255,255,255,1);font-family:Escrow Condensed,Georgia,serif;font-size:36px;line-height:40px;font-weight:700;letter-spacing:0px;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-stretch:normal;padding:0.5px 0px;}.css-1plpptc-HeadlineTextBlock svg{fill:rgba(255,255,255,1);}.css-1plpptc-HeadlineTextBlock::before{content:'';margin-bottom:-0.2266em;display:block;}.css-1plpptc-HeadlineTextBlock::after{content:'';margin-top:-0.1956em;display:block;}.css-1plpptc-HeadlineTextBlock >*{display:inline-block;} Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Case Heard by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court hears argument over whether Abercrombie & Fitch can be sued for refusing to hire a Muslim job applicant who wore a head scarf for religious reasons. What’s at stake? WSJ’s Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer

rtaliafeero

February 25, 2015

Editor Picks

View all .css-yin81f{display:inline-block;position:relative;top:2px;} .css-ocvtgk{fill:rgba(244,244,244,1);vertical-align:unset;display:inline-block;}@media screen and (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference){.css-ocvtgk{transition-property:fill;transition-duration:200ms;transition-timing-function:cubic-bezier(0, 0, .5, 1);}}@media screen and (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce){.css-ocvtgk{transition-property:fill;transition-duration:0ms;transition-timing-function:cubic-bezier(0, 0, .5, 1);}}, most popular, politics & campaign, life & culture, at barron's, marketwatch, moneyish and barron's.

More From Forbes

3 lessons organizations can learn from the abercrombie & fitch documentary.

  • Share to Facebook
  • Share to Twitter
  • Share to Linkedin

(AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

Netflix recently released White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch ; a documentary highlighting the ups and downs of Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F). The documentary chronicles the tumultuous journey of the retail behemoth and is a cautionary tale of what happens when established companies fail to prioritize equity as they grow and evolve. Corporate leaders as well as anyone managing a workplace should watch, as there are several lessons that can be pulled from it. This article highlights three important takeaways from the Netflix documentary.

1. Own past mistakes . Established in 1892, A&F has shape shifted over the last century and has turned into a household name. Gen Xers and millennials alike may have fond memories of the brand, which peaked in popularity during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Over the last few decades, the company has continuously found itself in hot water, as depicted in the documentary. Perhaps the most notable case of controversy that the company found themselves embroiled in was a case of religious discrimination that ended up going to the U.S. Supreme Court. The company’s refusal to hire a Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, who wore a hijab as part of her religious practice, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Organizations reflecting on this situation should understand that receipts are forever; any attempt to rectify past transgressions committed by employees or corporate leadership should involve acknowledging and taking ownership of the wrongdoing no matter how long ago it occurred. In an email, A&F’s CEO Fran Horowitz stated “the recently released documentary is not reflective of who we are now. We own and validate that there were exclusionary and inappropriate actions under former leadership.” With social media, past errs are easily accessible. This is not to say that corporations should be forever vilified for past mistakes and missteps, but too often organizations involved in scandals want to move forward without putting structures and systems in place to prevent the wrongdoing from occurring again. Aside from making corporate statements, which are often empty , words should be followed by solid actions to catalyze change.

Samantha Elauf stands outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015. The Muslim ... [+] woman didn't get hired by clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a black headscarf that conflicted with the company's dress code to her job interview. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

2. Leadership accountability is vital . In the aforementioned email, Fran Horowitz stated in regards to the documentary “since I became CEO in 2017, we’ve overhauled A&F and transformed with intention into a place of belonging. We've evolved the organization, including making changes in management, prioritizing representation, implementing new policies, re-envisioning our store experiences and updating the fit, size-range and style of our products.” Another lesson that organizations should pull away from the documentary is how vital leadership accountability is. In 2005, A&F settled a class action lawsuit based on a discriminatory “look policy” that was in place, which many allege showed preference to white male job applicants. As a result of the lawsuit, the company had to create an office of diversity, a formal complaint system, and pay millions of dollars to applicants who were discriminated against based on race or gender. The specific ways that the company held leaders accountable is vague. In order for any DEI efforts to be successful, organizations must prioritize leadership accountability. No matter how many measures are in place to increase diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, without holding decision-makers and those in power accountable for their actions and behaviors, no changes will be feasible. Accountability measures must be baked into the fabric of the organizational system.

3. Discrimination is no longer sustainable . A&F engaged in countless instances of discriminatory behavior in their processes, procedures and policies. In a 2006 interview , former CEO Mike Jeffries stated “are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don't alienate anybody, but you don't excite anybody, either.” In 2022 and beyond, consumers are no longer willing to put up with companies behaving badly. In this current era, consumers value brands that are outspoken about social and political issues. Behaviors that flew under the radar in previous decades will not go unnoticed now. A&F had the money, fame, and status to continuously clean up their messes but for smaller and lesser-known brands, a failure to prioritize DEI will lead to an imminent demise. Annually, corporations big and small should audit their company policies. Don’t be afraid to overhaul archaic and outdated practices. Invite a DEI consultant or human resource business partner to conduct an equity audit to check for areas that need improving. Refusing to evolve will no longer be a sustainable practice; aside from resulting in costly litigation, companies could suffer from irreparable damage to their reputation and image.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

Janice Gassam Asare

  • Editorial Standards
  • Reprints & Permissions

The Business of Fashion

Agenda-setting intelligence, analysis and advice for the global fashion community.

News & Analysis

  • Professional Exclusives
  • The News in Brief
  • Sustainability
  • Direct-to-Consumer
  • Global Markets
  • Fashion Week
  • Workplace & Talent
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Financial Markets
  • Newsletters
  • Case Studies
  • Masterclasses
  • Special Editions
  • The State of Fashion
  • Read Careers Advice
  • BoF Professional
  • BoF Careers
  • BoF Insights
  • Our Journalism
  • Work With Us
  • Read daily fashion news
  • Download special reports
  • Sign up for essential email briefings
  • Follow topics of interest
  • Receive event invitations
  • Create job alerts

Case Study | Abercrombie & Fitch’s Brand Reinvention

Abercrombie & Fitch Case Study Cover

  • Cathaleen Chen

In 2016, Abercrombie & Fitch was the most-hated retailer in the US. That, at least, was the story numerous headlines conveyed that year after the American Customer Satisfaction Index ranked the retailer last in a survey measuring consumer happiness with brands. Internationally, too, the brand lost its appeal as sales slipped year after year.

There were good reasons why A&F had fallen out of favour with consumers. The company’s sexualised marketing seemed dated and offensive at a time when people began to celebrate body positivity. Young shoppers had also ditched logos and brand names for a more expressive personal style from fast-fashion newcomers. Once provocative, A&F’s shirtless models who stood outside the stores to promote the brand now came across as out of touch.

But by the time the damning survey came out, A&F was already one year into a sweeping turnaround plan. The company’s long-standing chief executive, Mike Jeffries, had left the company a few years earlier under a cloud of controversy, leaving a new executive team to forge ahead with a plan to resurrect the once-successful company. A&F discontinued its signature racy ads — the most recognisable of which were black-and-white images of chiselled men shot by Bruce Weber, whose alleged history of sexually abusing models exacerbated A&F’s problematic image — and set about overhauling the company, from its merchandising to internal culture.

Turning around the brand was a tall order, and one that would take several years to sway both consumers and industry insiders. To overhaul a brand with such dismal public relations and a diminishing customer base seemed near impossible. As one industry analyst recalls today: “We didn’t think they could do it.”

By 2021, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. — which owns the namesake label as well as Hollister, Abercrombie Kids and two smaller brands under the Hollister umbrella — was on the rebound. A recent earnings report trumpeted the group’s best second-quarter operating income and margin since 2008, with sales exceeding pre-pandemic levels.

In an industry that is now in a state of flux, other retailers are facing similar challenges to A&F, leaving many desperate to reinvent their tired brands. Abercrombie’s ongoing work provides evidence that it can be done. Among US retailers, J.Crew, Banana Republic and Express all unveiled fresh product campaigns in autumn 2021 in an attempt to renew their product assortment and battle years of sales decline.

Victoria’s Secret began its own turnaround in 2020, following in A&F’s footsteps in eradicating outdated racy marketing that glamourised unrealistic beauty standards for women. Companies outside the US are undertaking rebrandings, too. In the UK, for example, Asos is looking to update its recently acquired Topshop and Miss Selfridge brands, whose former-parent company Arcadia Group filed for bankruptcy in late 2020.

“For a long time, we thought [A&F’s] rebrand was impossible,” said Janine Stichter, retail analyst at investment bank Jefferies. “What they’ve achieved is really unique… A lot of it came down to having faith that they’re on the right path and giving it time.”

Under chief executive Fran Horowitz, who was appointed to the top position in 2017 after a stint as head of Hollister, the company has honed a strategy built around four pillars that fundamentally transformed how the company functions: making customer feedback the highest priority across teams; identifying a specific brand purpose to plan products and transform them into versatile, style-forward pieces with a reputation for quality; breaking down internal silos to improve collaboration and innovation; and adopting a marketing strategy that focuses on social media first.

Horowitz’s strategy has also included the sensible big moves one would expect from a new leader. She made a number of key hires and promotions to build a team that now includes Carey Krug, senior vice president of Abercrombie marketing; Corey Robinson, who leads merchandising and design; and global brands president Kristin Scott. Like many of its peers, the company also eliminated unprofitable stores and updated store formats. As of July 2021, A&F had 733 locations, a fleet that is around 30 percent smaller than 2012, when it boasted 1,100 stores.

This case study unpacks the pillars underpinning A&F’s strategy that can be tailored to the turnaround strategies of other companies, taking into consideration that a label that targets an older customer segment, for instance, will have different marketing methods from one that is intended for a Gen-Z clientele.

Every retailer, whether or not it is in need of a turnaround, wants to enhance its products and heighten customer perception. BoF explores just how Abercrombie brought these ambitions to life.

Click below to read the case study now.

Cathaleen Chen

Cathaleen Chen is Retail Correspondent at The Business of Fashion. She is based in New York and drives BoF’s coverage of the retail and direct-to-consumer sectors.

  • Fran Horowitz
  • Mike Jeffries
  • Kristin Scott
  • Abercrombie & Fitch

© 2024 The Business of Fashion. All rights reserved. For more information read our Terms & Conditions

Inditex Pushes Bargain Brand to Counter Shein

Inditex Pushes Bargain Brand to Counter Shein

The rapid growth of Shein, with its budget prices, has put significant pressure on the Zara owner and rival fast fashion group H&M.

The Football Team That Finally Got Fashion Right

The Football Team That Finally Got Fashion Right

Vogue-produced campaigns, streetwear tie-ups, fashion week events and special relationships with Off-White and Puma have helped Italian giant AC Milan infiltrate the industry where other teams have fallen short.

How Shein and Temu Are Upending the Global Air Cargo Industry

How Shein and Temu Are Upending the Global Air Cargo Industry

Shein and Temu’s growth is squeezing out space for other industries on air freighters, just as global firms are scrambling to find alternative logistics options due to the Red Sea disruptions.

As Target Celebrates 25 Years of Designer Collaborations, Fashion Takes a Backseat

As Target Celebrates 25 Years of Designer Collaborations, Fashion Takes a Backseat

The American big-box retailer announced its upcoming partnership with Diane von Furstenberg amid a sales slump in apparel and other discretionary categories.

Subscribe to the BoF Daily Digest

The essential daily round-up of fashion news, analysis, and breaking news alerts.

Our newsletters may include 3rd-party advertising, by subscribing you agree to the Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Our Products

  • BoF Insights (Opens in new window)

Inside the digital transformation of Abercrombie & Fitch

Samir Desai of Abercrombie & Fitch on the Retail Gets Real podcast.

Bill Thorne, NRF SVP of communications and public affairs, speaks with Abercrombie & Fitch Chief Digital and Technology Officer Samir Desai at NRF 2024: Retail's Big Show.

Many retailers are going through a digital transformation or digital revolution, but in most cases, that transformation is rooted in the customer and the customer experience.

That’s not entirely the case for 132-year-old American lifestyle retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, which is in the midst of an enterprise-wide digital transformation spearheaded and led by Chief Digital and Technology Officer Samir Desai.

While the customer aspect is certainly important, Desai says on this episode of Retail Gets Real , recorded live at NRF 2024: Retail’s Big Show, “For us it’s also been equally important to look inside our company, and how our company operates to make sure that we’re infusing these digital technologies in a way where — top to bottom — we are operating in a more efficient, more automated manner.”

Desai and his team have upgraded and modernized the retailer’s core technology platforms, getting to know the A&F customer better across every touch point and then “wowing our customer everywhere,” he says.

Abercrombie & Fitch has an advantage in that it interacts directly with “98%, maybe 99% of our customers,” he says. “Meaning we have first-party customer data.” Add to that a loyalty program where 70%-80% of customers are members and the fact that nearly 50% of the business is digital, Desai says, and “you get to learn a lot more about the customer journey that you wouldn’t learn in a bricks-and-mortar experience.”

Browse photos, blog posts, videos and more from  NRF 2024: Retail’s Big Show .

All this data allows A&F to better know its customers and personalize unique journeys for them. The organized and centralized data foundation, as Desai calls it, will also allow the retailer to unlock the value of AI technology including personalized recommendations, demand forecasting in stores based on weather and zip code, and a new AI stylist feature on the app. The AI stylist launched last year and is a different way for customers to find a product based on questions and prompts rather than keywords.

“That’s a new experience for the customer,” Desai says — but it’s also providing a lot more data and customer insights like intent and context. “Even if they don’t buy there, we now learn a lot more about why that person came to the Abercrombie app or site,” he says. “The next time they come, hopefully we can give them an even better, more personalized experience.”

Listen to the full episode to hear more about Desai’s career journey, his approach to leadership at Abercrombie & Fitch, and what excites him most about the future of retail (spoiler: it’s technology).

Episode transcript, edited for clarity

Bill Thorne: Welcome to Retail Gets Real, where we hear from retail’s most fascinating leaders about the industry that impacts everyone everywhere, every day. I’m Bill Thorne from the National Retail Federation, coming to you from NRF 2024: Retail’s Big Show in New York City. On today’s episode, we’re talking to Samir Desai, chief digital and technology officer, Abercrombie and Fitch Company.

We’re going to talk to Samir about his career journey, the digital revolution underway at Abercrombie and Fitch, and what the future of retail looks like.

Samir Desai, welcome to Retail Get Real.

Samir Desai: Thanks for having me. Excited to be here.

Thorne: I want to know what the Samir journey has been. I mean, how did you get into retail, and just as importantly, how did you get into retail technology?

Desai: My technology journey kind of dates back into the early part of my life. Back in high school I was always having a really kind of strong passion and affinity for computers. I’d go to these computer shows on the weekends, build my own computer at home, tinkering with software development.

So [I] just had this passion with technology and then had the opportunity to attend University of Michigan and study computer engineering there. And then graduated right at the tail end of the dot-com bubble burst. So lucky me, I come out, you know, not a lot of jobs in technology at the time, so it took me a little bit to kind of land somewhere.

And I ultimately ended up at a company called Equinox, based in New York City, and Equinox was very early in their growth trajectory. At the time, only about 18 or 20 locations, really based out of New York City. And you know, they had just raised the private equity capital and really started a big growth trajectory. They grew their business double digits, year over year, for north of a decade. And through that journey, I had the opportunity to learn a tremendous amount of different things.

The thing that I took away probably the most was really kind of focusing on the member experience as we called it there, or customer experience in retail. But beyond that, really kind of built a passion for an entrepreneurial mindset — learned the importance of brand, and more than anything, just kind of this concept of servant leadership.

Really, the folks in a corporate office are there to serve the folks in the field, which, you know, people in retail know really well, I’m sure. I spent about 15 years of my career there, playing leadership roles in a variety of different types of businesses, from spas to hotels to on-demand streaming business toward the kind of tail end of my time there.

But then ultimately, COVID hit and the gym business and fitness business really was shuttered, frankly, so it gave me an opportunity to lift up my head and say, ‘OK, I think it’s an opportunity in time for me to learn something else, push myself to do something different.’

And knowing what I had a passion for — around the customer, around work that can be impacted almost immediately and really kind of this omnichannel experience that I had built at Equinox, kind of bridging digital and physical between the in club and at home — retail felt like the perfect place for me to go next. And got a call from A&F and the rest is history. I’m here.

Thorne: That’s pretty awesome. But what drew you to the opportunity at A&F? I mean, was there something in particular that they just presented to you and you were like, I got to do it?

Desai: Absolutely. There are a few different things. So first and foremost, I talked a little bit about brand. The Abercrombie and Hollister brands are global, iconic household names, so that was a big draw. The Abercrombie and Fitch Company business through COVID saw their business become 50%, almost 60% digital, so a big spike in digital. The CEO and the board really kind of took note of this, and saw an opportunity to really intently invest in this space. And so, it was an opportunity for me to kind of come in, and be a part of this transformation journey, and really build out a more mature digital capability. And then Abercrombie has 800-plus stores globally, so if you have a strong digital business and then a fleet of 800-plus stores, it makes for a tremendous omnichannel business opportunity.

And finally, I say the culture, right? So I heard a lot about the culture through the interview process and other people who had worked there in the past, and the culture under the leadership of Fran Horowitz, the new CEO — or the new-ish, I guess, she’s been there for a long time now — and the leadership team, it’s a very different company than the company it was maybe 20 years ago. I think all those things together really kind of motivated me to take the opportunity.

Thorne: Oh, I think there, there are those that say, and I believe that is correct, that Abercrombie and Fitch is in the middle of a company-wide digital revolution. Let’s talk about that, and what ‘Always Forward’ is.

Desai: Yeah. In June of 2022, we had the opportunity to host an Investor Day in New York City, and we were able to, that Investor Day, share out our long-range plan, which we’ve labeled the ‘Always Forward’ plan.

The ‘Always Forward’ plan is really rooted in three core pillars. One: really focused brand growth, so, which brands are we focusing on growing disproportionately more than others? Operating the company with financial discipline, which is always important. And then, as you mentioned, the third pillar was this enterprise-wide digital revolution .

And the words enterprise-wide, we were very intentional with. It wasn’t just something that we had kind of slapped on in the sense that, you know, a lot of companies are going through digital transformation and digital revolutions, but very rooted in their customer and the customer experience. And while that’s important, you know, for us it’s also been equally important to look inside of our company and how our company operates to make sure that we’re infusing these digital technologies in a way where, top to bottom, we are operating in a more efficient, more automated manner. That’s been a big part of this strategy.

And the strategy, the digital revolution strategy itself is really focused on three core pillars in itself. One is modernizing our core platforms — moving into the cloud and really kind of upgrading and modernizing our core technology because, you know, we can’t deliver a best-in-class customer experience if we’re operating on a brittle, shaky foundation. We recognize that and we’re investing in that.

Second is knowing our customer better across every touch point. And then third is what we call wowing our customer everywhere. That that’s really been the kind of … those are the pillars of the strategy.

And then how we’re going about unlocking those strategies is, you know, starting with the talent. I joined the company about two and a half years ago. A lot of the talent in the company around digital either didn’t exist or was outsourced or was being leaned on through partners. And if we really wanted to be a winner in this space, we knew that we had to insource and build the capability inside the company.

We’ve hired north of 125 people in various digital and technology roles like product managers, data scientists, engineers. These are just kind of capabilities that really didn’t exist with a lot of depth inside the company. So, so really bringing in the right talent inside the company.

The second part was around evolving the operating model. We were very project-based. Somebody would say, ‘I want to do this project. Well, how much would it cost? How long will it take me to get it done?’ And now we’re operating in a, what I call, a product-based model, where we’ve got product teams that are focused on different aspects of the customer journey, end to end, and they’re maniacally focused on that element of the journey.

If somebody is focused, if a team is focused on product discovery and helping the customer find the right product, then, day and night, that’s all they think about and dream about is: How do I make that experience the best it can be? And they’ve got a dedicated team of engineers that they’re paired up with that allow them to have the autonomy to be able to keep going and experimenting and building new capabilities in that space. So that was a kind of evolution of our operating model, to be more data-led, customer feedback-led and more iterative versus this kind of long six-to-nine-month project cycle.

And then finally, I talked about modernizing our platform. Moving a lot of our technology into the cloud and all those things are really important, including unifying our data and really having a centralized repository of all of our data so that we can leverage a lot of the new technologies that are obviously, you know, out right now.

Thorne: Your session here at the NRF Big Show, I believe, is all about harnessing data to stay connected to the customer. How is Abercrombie and Fitch using that data to drive growth, and to not only maybe start that connection, but maintain that connection with the customer?

Desai: Data has been a big, big focus for us. As I said, it was one of the core pillars of our digital revolution program. It starts with, you know, for us, modernizing the data platform. So, we moved all, moving all of our data into the cloud and centralizing that — that‘s kind of table stakes.

For our business, we‘ve got this, I‘d say, relatively unique advantage in that, 98%, maybe 99% of our customers, we’re interacting with directly. Meaning we have first-party customer data. We’re not going through a wholesaler or franchise operator where, you know, we lose a lot of that customer data.

So, we’re transacting directly with the customer, and we’ve got a loyalty program that has a very high penetration — 70% to 80% of our customers are members in our loyalty program, which gives us even more first-party customer data. Layer on top of all that, the fact that our business is almost 50% digital. When you have a business that’s that heavily penetrating digital, you get to learn a lot more about the customer journey that you wouldn’t learn in a brick-and-mortar experience, right?

When somebody comes into a store, they’re looking at different products, you only really know about them until they come to the register. Now we can see what type of products people are browsing, even if they don’t buy. We’ve taken all of that data to then kind of create what we call these behavior segments, and so we’re able to start to create segments based on what people are telling us: whether they’re low spenders, medium spenders, high spenders, what kind of product they have an affinity for.

Are they dress shoppers? Are they denim shoppers? Do they like to shop online more? Do they like to shop in-store more? We’re taking all these attributes and creating these cohorts and slotting our customers into those segments, and then being able to craft really kind of personalizing unique journeys based on which segment they fall into, and then crafting strategies to be able to kind of migrate them from one segment to the next. So that’s been really important.

But going back to the point on data. I think one other point I want to make is there’s different types of data, and we’d like to summarize it as kind of performance data and perception data. Performance data is, you know, what we’re observing on how the customer is transacting, what the hard data is on the actual transaction, and the analytics around that.

Perception data is how the customer feels about our brand and our experience, right? The voice of customer. And we’ve made a big investment in maturing our voice of customer program, really capturing net promoter score, not just after a transaction, but earlier up the funnel — when somebody’s browsing products on our site, we’ll pop up something that asks them for the customer satisfaction score, net promoter score there, so we get an idea of how that experience is going. And all of that data is also translating into how we’re evolving the experience and where we’re focusing.

Finally, I’ll give one example on how we’re leveraging some of this. The mobile app has been a big focus for us and pushing customers into the mobile app. And one of the pain points we observed earlier on with our Hollister brand was that, you know, the primary target customer is a high school teenager. They love browsing our app. They look at product, but then they don’t have a credit card to buy. And so, they kind of hit a wall and they’re not able to transact. So they take screenshots, they text their parents and there’s a lot of this offline activity (offline meaning off of our app activity) that’s happening.

We thought, how do we make this process seamless? How do we make it less, remove the friction from it? And so, we introduced this concept called ‘share to pay’ inside of our Hollister app, where the customer can pick a couple different products (the teen effectively) and then share them with their parent through the app. And the parent can either approve or reject and then kind of buy on their behalf. Now, that solved the customer friction point, but what it also did was give us a lot of data on what products are customers really interested in buying, but you know, they just don’t have the buying power versus them adding to their cart or adding to their bag and not checking out. So really kind of a twofold approach there, and, you know, the data is the kind of common denominator.

Thorne: A teen is always going to find a way to get his or her parents to pay, and so it’s really nice that you’ve set it up that it’s easier without the arguing. So, you’ve been around the convention center. You’ve seen that a lot of the emphasis by the vendors, a lot of the content that is being provided really focuses on the future of AI, and we’ve talked a lot about it on Retail Gets Real, the impact that it’s having on retail, on consumers, even on products. So how is Abercrombie and Fitch looking at AI?

Desai: Yes, AI is … almost every session here at NRF and I’m sure it’ll be at every session and every technology-based conference for the rest of the year. But AI is definitely not a flash in the pan and so for us, you know, again, there’s got two big buckets of AI, right? There’s traditional AI that’s been around for a long time. A lot of companies have been using it. Abercrombie’s been using it for sure as well.

And then there’s the generative AI that’s a little bit more newer to the scene. I’ll talk a little bit about both.

But before I do that, I want to go back and kind of underscore the point I made earlier around the data foundation and the data platform. Because while all this AI technology is great and sexy, and it sounds like it’ll solve a lot of problems, if you don’t have your data organized in the right way and centralized with the right level of governance and quality, you really won’t be able to unlock any of this value.

It’s really important to invest first and foremost on the kind of infrastructure and the kind of foundation. As it relates to traditional AI, we’ve been focused on that for a number of years, as I said, and the things that we’ve been doing with that technology are things like product recommendations, you know, on our product detail page, using it to better forecast demand of product inside of our stores. So that’s something a little bit more recent where we’re looking not only at transactional data of the past, but also looking at other data sets like weather, like social media engagement, like clickstream data to get a better idea of how much demand there’ll be for a certain style of product in a certain zip code. It’s allowing us to be a lot more precise about how we allocate inventory, which in turn leads to less redlines and markdowns, i.e., higher margin, and also less out of stocks, right ? Ultimately inventory is the kind of most expensive asset that any retailer has, and so that’s been a big focus for us.

And then finally, with traditional AI, we’ve also really been thinking about customer lifetime value for customers we have, but using that to then create what we call a predictive customer lifetime value. We’re able to look at historical data and say, ‘OK, we’ve acquired a new customer. What do we predict the lifetime value of this customer will be?’ And based on that lifetime value, if it’s very high, then obviously we can put them down a journey that will work a little bit harder and spend a little bit more money to be able to convert them and hold onto them, versus maybe somebody who might shop once and then not come back to us.

So those are examples of what I’d call traditional AI. Nothing revolutionary there, but all good work.

Then on the generative side, we’ve been learning a lot and just kind of staying curious. The way we’re thinking about generative AI in our business is really through three lenses. First, I would say it’s what we call our global home office associate, so people who are working in our “corporate office.” Then we have our store associate as like the second lens, and the third is the customer. So how does generative AI, you know, be applied to all three of these different cohorts or constituencies?

In the home office, it’s very much right now about efficiency and productivity. How do we help people do their jobs a little bit better? How do we automate things in a bigger way? And we’re seeing some fruits of that labor in our marketing function where product copy copywriters can spend a little bit less time, you know, with the cold start and more editing copy that the AI produces with images, things like that.

In the home office, it’s also about education though, because this is such a new topic and there’s a lot of curiosity outside of the technology team in the organization, which is a great thing, right? It’s a great point in time to be a technologist where folks and planning and merchandising and marketing are all asking questions about technology. Usually, it’s the other way around and you’re kind of pushing technology onto the other parts of the organization. It’s a great time and a great space, and so what we’re trying to do is figure out how do we help educate the other parts of the organization on how this technology works and how they should be thinking about it in their space. We are focused on building a kind of a lightweight curriculum on how to help people learn a little bit more. That’s in the home office.

And the store associate side, we think about AI as associate intelligence inside of our stores. So, how do we augment and empower our store associates with more information using AI tools to better service our customers? A lot of our associates are new to the job. There’s a higher amount of turnover in retail in general, and we’re no different than that. And so, our associates don’t have a tremendous amount of expertise on our products, and there’s a lot of new product that keeps getting set.

We’re starting to build capabilities where our associates can go into an app and use a natural language-based interface where they can ask questions about a certain product and they can get some feedback from the AI on what that product looks like, tapping into ratings and review data that might be on our website, and a variety of other data sources, so the associate feels a little bit more empowered on how to answer questions and get smarter about the product.

And then finally on the customer side, you know, we’ve been doing a lot of experimentation and testing. One of the things that I’m excited about is this concept of an AI stylist. We introduced this AI stylist in our Abercrombie app last year and it’s a different way for our customers to find our product. Normally you go into any kind of ecommerce site or app, and you see a big box on the top and you start typing in keywords, and it sounds like you’re a caveman, ‘black leather jacket.’ And then you expect to see a whole bunch of products. Then you’re sifting through everything versus a more natural language way of talking.

So, the AI stylist will ask you questions and you’ll say, ‘hey, I’m going on a bachelorette party in Nashville in April. I’m curious what kind of outfits you’d recommend.’ And then the AI engine will spit back, you know, ‘Here are a couple of different products.’ If you like those, great, you can engage with them, go to the product detail page. If you think ‘no, didn’t hit the mark,’ ask it again, give it a little bit more context. And so that’s a new experience for the customer, but what it also is, is giving us a lot more data and a lot more insight on that customer, the intent of that customer, context, so even if they don’t buy there, we now learn a lot more about why that person came to the Abercrombie app or that Abercrombie site. So the next time they come, hopefully we can give them an even better, more personalized experience. Or if a product that they were looking for wasn’t available at that time and it comes back in stock a couple weeks later. So we’ve learned a lot about that customer and that interaction, which is how we’re using it there.

And what I’ll wrap on this generative AI topic with is: What we are seeing today and what we’re experiencing today, you just have to remind ourselves that this is the worst this technology will ever be, right? Today it’s only getting better. Every day it’s getting better and better, so it’s already pretty amazing and impressive. I’m really excited about what’ll unfold throughout this year in this space.

Thorne: I like the AI stylist. I think that’s absolutely brilliant because it’s going to take into consideration weather, it’s going to take into consideration all these different things that you wouldn’t necessarily think about. Or if you think about it, it’ll take you forever to track it down. And this way, it just does the work for you.

Desai: Yeah, and it’s … if you think about the experience you have inside of a store, when you come into a store and you talk to an associate, you don’t give them keywords. That’s not how you talk to somebody. Right? So, the way … but yet, when you come to our app or site, we expect you to talk to us in keywords.

Being able to talk to our app or our site in a way you would talk to a store associate, feels like merging or bridging the kind of physical and digital in a bigger way than we’ve had historically.

Thorne: It’s exciting. So, your leadership approach. You’ve got a team and it’s in technology and it’s a time of such rapid change. Creativity is important but also, implementation is also very important because things are changing so quickly. You can’t just, you know, think about it for a long time. You’ve got to think about it, figure out the efficacy, and then move quickly before somebody else does and has the competitive advantage. What is your approach to that as a leader?

Desai: On this topic of change, I mean, I think you’re spot on. Our CEO Fran Horowitz says all the time, the only constant in retail is change.

Thorne: That’s what I say. I say, oh my God, if you go back on, we’ve got 330 episodes of Retail Gets Real. If I’ve said it, I probably said it on 295.

Desai: Oh, you’re inspiring her.

Thorne: I don’t know that it’s just, it, you know, retail, you know, that is the one thing that’s the constant. It changes.

Desai: Absolutely, and for Abercrombie and Fitch, there’s been obviously a tremendous amount of change over the last several years from our brand positioning to our target customer, the store footprint, our digital and physical mix. So, we’ve been going through a whole lot of change and, you know, we believe, we’re obviously a lot better for it coming out of the other end of that change.

But the change is not over. We’ve really adopted, as others I think have as well, this test/learn/rate mindset. And that’s a philosophy that we absolutely have adopted in our merchandising process, but also in our digital and technology teams as well.

So, I’d say the technology is at a place now where, with the cloud and all that, you can very quickly develop prototypes and put them in the hands of customers, get feedback and iterate, versus before you had really had to think hard and long about, do I want to make this investment in this capability because it’s going to cost me X amount of dollars and six months of time to go build. I feel like the tools and technology have come a long way.

Beyond that, I’d say, really encouraging the teams to stay focused on the customer pain points and the problems. It’s very easy to look at new technology and start to get excited and carried away on building capabilities that nobody really wants to use. We really need to be rooted in, what’s the customer pain point? What’s the friction point? How is this going to help the customer in a bigger way? So, that’s been a little bit of the mindset.

Beyond that, from my own kind of leadership perspective. You know, we are a … our digital and technology team at Abercrombie and Fitch is a remote hybrid team still. It was like that in Covid — obviously a lot of companies were — we continued to maintain that operating model for our teams. And while that obviously provides a tremendous amount of flexibility for our teammates, it makes it harder to build trust. It makes it harder. You have to work harder to foster relationships, right?

So, we really rely heavily on async communication. We do these things called Team Up Weeks, where a few times a year we’ll bring everybody onto campus in Columbus, Ohio, and we’ll organize an entire week around a variety of different activities.

And then finally, I talked a little bit about the culture when you asked me, you know, why I chose to come to Abercrombie and Fitch. Coming on the other side of this, you know, obviously, I see the culture, I live the culture now, but the culture is something that we all at A&F lean into very heavily.

And it’s not just a piece of paper with a bunch of leadership standards you get on day one when you join the company, but it’s leadership standards and vocabulary that we hear and use every single day in multiple meetings. And so, you know, the words of ‘team up’ and ‘build up’ and ‘aim high,’ ‘stay curious’ — these are leadership standards that help keep the teams connected and help us persevere through a lot of the change because, you know, we‘re much more aligned as a result.

Thorne: What is the — this is always a hard question — what is the best piece of career advice you’ve ever gotten?

Desai: Yeah, so, it’s hard to come up with just one piece of advice, like you said. But I’d say one of the best pieces of advice that I’ve received and I practice, I learned very early on in my career at Equinox. And that was to take advantage of white space opportunities. And really not waiting for somebody to kind of task you or ask you to do something. But if you see, you know, there’s an opportunity to do something better or there’s something that can be done differently, and you have the capability of helping or solving that, then jump in on it and get it done.

You know, Equinox, as I said, was through a very high growth curve and there was a lot of things to do and not a lot of, not enough people to do it. And frankly, all companies, I think, have more things to do than people they have to do them.

So that’s been a really helpful thing for me, and as a result of being able to grab those white space opportunities and doing more, it helped me build my personal brand inside the company in a bigger way and continue to propel me further and further up to connect career ladder, so to say.

So, you know, that’s one that stuck with me and I kind of pass along to others who are earlier in their career is — you know, don’t just stay in your lane or stick to your kind of assignment. You know, it’s better to ask for forgiveness sometimes than permission, and go out there and get stuff done.

Thorne: That’s great. So last question, I promise. What excites you most about the future of retail?

Desai: I might be a little bit biased being a technologist, but really I think, just the evolution of technology is getting to a place where the ability to transact and frankly kind of deliver a commerce experience is becoming just really seamless and kind of infinitely wide. And it’s not limited to just one channel of one store in one way.

Obviously digital has introduced that social media layers on, and now with this kind of next wave of generative AI, it just feels like the technology is going to get better and better, and in place where it’ll help the customer or the consumer really kind of understand what they need before they even know it, and, then really kind of make it seamless for them. So. That’s exciting. And I think being able to be a part of that and having a seat at the table around driving the technology change and transformation is exciting.

Thorne: It is exciting, and I really do appreciate your insights into this. For a long time, it’s like, somebody asked Jeff Bezos one time, ‘Are you a retailer or a technologist?’ He said, ‘Well, I’m a technologist. I’m not a retailer.’ And today you can’t be a retailer unless you are a technologist. And technology plays such an important role, not only in our success today, but moving forward and it’s moving at the fast speed of change. And so, you’re in a great place doing great work for a great brand. And congratulations and thank you so much, Samir, for spending time with us.

Desai: Of course. Thank you. This has been a lot of fun.

Thorne: And thank you all for listening to another episode of Retail Gets Real. You can find more about this episode and more at retail gets real dot com. From Retail’s Big Show at the Javits Center in New York City. I’m Bill Thorne. This is Retail Gets Real. Thanks for listening. Until next time.

Retail Gets Real logo image

The retail industry impacts everyone, everywhere, every day.

NRF’s podcast features unfiltered, insightful conversations with the industry’s most interesting people. Hear retail executives, industry experts, entrepreneurs and influencers discuss trends, their career stories and the future of retail.

Subscribe to NRF's Retail Gets Real podcast   Apple | Spotify | Google

Related content

Lee Peterson speaking at NRF 2024: Retail's Big Show

IMAGES

  1. The Supreme Court Heard Abercrombie’s Discrimination Case Today

    abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

  2. Abercrombie & Fitch Loses Discrimination Case

    abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

  3. Abercrombie & Fitch

    abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

  4. Abercrombie and Fitch Prosecuted for Discrimination Again

    abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

  5. Jay Sylvester

    abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

  6. Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Case Heard by Supreme Court

    abercrombie & fitch discrimination case study

COMMENTS

  1. 'Discrimination was their brand': how Abercrombie & Fitch fell out of

    White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch, a new Netflix documentary on the ubiquity of a once zeitgeist-y brand's limited vision of "cool" and its culture of discrimination, is easy ...

  2. Case: Abercrombie & Fitch Employment Discrimination

    In June 2003, LDF filed a class-action lawsuit, Gonzalez v.Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, against national clothing retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch.The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charged that in addition to selling so-called "classic" looks, Abercrombie also practiced a classic form of discrimination against Black, Latino, and Asian American applicants and employees.

  3. Abercrombie Resolves Religious Discrimination Case Following Supreme

    A federal appeals court has granted Abercrombie & Fitch's request to dismiss its appeal of EEOC's successful religious discrimination suit against the company, the federal agency announced today. This represents the final resolution of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which was first filed in 2009. The case involved Abercrombie's refusal to hire Samantha Elauf, a Muslim, because of her religious ...

  4. Abercrombie's Legal Defeat—and Its Cultural Failure

    June 5, 2015. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled this week that Abercrombie & Fitch, the purveyor of pricey, preppy, body-conscious clothing for tweens and teens, had violated civil ...

  5. EEOC v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.

    ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit. No. 14-86. ... Indeed, in asking us to take this case, the EEOC dismissed one of Abercrombie's supporting authorities as "a case addressing intentional discrimination, not religious accommodation." Reply to Brief in Opposition 7, n ...

  6. Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

    The lawsuit González v.Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 3:03-cv-02817, filed in June 2003, alleged that the nationwide retailer Abercrombie & Fitch "violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practice that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment."

  7. Abercrombie & Fitch Class-Action Discrimination Lawsuit Details

    In June 2003, she, along with eight others, sued Abercrombie & Fitch for race and sex discrimination. The company settled and admitted no guilt, though it was required to pay $40 million and sign ...

  8. Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court

    The case started in 2008 when Ms. Elauf, then 17, applied for a job in a children's clothing store owned by Abercrombie & Fitch at Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla. She wore a black head scarf ...

  9. Supreme Court Looks At Abercrombie & Fitch's Hijab Discrimination Case

    A closely watched case before the Supreme Court Wednesday could have big consequences for religious rights in the workplace. It involves Abercrombie & Fitch, the preppy, mall-based retailer, and a ...

  10. Abercrombie & Fitch Settles Two Pending EEOC Religious Discrimination

    Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has agreed to pay $71,000 and to change its policies to settle two separate religious discrimination lawsuits on behalf of Muslim teens wearing hijabs (religious headscarves), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. This settlement follows last week's ruling finding Abercrombie liable for religious discrimination in one ...

  11. Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination in EEOC Suit

    A federal judge has found clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch liable for religious discrimination when it fired Muslim employee Umme-Hani Khan for wearing her hijab (religious headscarf), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. The ruling came in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the federal agency in which Khan intervened.

  12. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

    After Abercrombie & Fitch did not hire Samantha Elauf because her religious headscarf violated the company's dress code, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie. ... Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie in hijab case, Politico ... Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie & Fitch In Discrimination Case, Huffington Post ...

  13. Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled

    Nov. 17, 2004. Abercrombie & Fitch, one of the nation's trendiest retailers, settled race and sex discrimination lawsuits yesterday, agreeing to alter its well-known collegiate, all-American ...

  14. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

    In the coalition brief joined by the National Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber urged the Supreme Court to reject the EEOC's novel argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch.The EEOC argued that, when an employer refuses to hire a job applicant because her religious practice violates a neutral workplace policy, that refusal is intentional religious discrimination, which can give ...

  15. Abercrombie & Fitch Rise and Fall: Lawsuits, Controversy, Comeback

    And these changes are paying off: Abercrombie & Fitch's sales continue to exceed Wall Street estimates. according to its 2023 third quarter report. The brand brought in $1.06 billion in revenue ...

  16. Disabled student sues Abercrombie & Fitch for discrimination

    Riam Dean, a 22-year-old law student from Greenford, west London, claims she was removed from the shop floor at the company's Savile Row branch when management became aware of her disability. Dean ...

  17. EEOC Agrees to Landmark Resolution of Discrimination Case Against

    Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Case No. CV-04-4731 SI, which was filed on November 10, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. The lawsuit alleged that Abercrombie & Fitch, which operates a nationwide chain of retail stores, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ...

  18. Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie & Fitch In Discrimination Case

    WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday that retailer Abercrombie & Fitch may have violated workplace discrimination law when it turned down a Muslim job applicant because she wore a hijab, even though her religious beliefs never came up in the interview. Samantha Elauf, the job seeker at the center of the case, applied for a sales ...

  19. Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Case Heard by Supreme Court

    Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Case Heard by Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hears argument over whether Abercrombie & Fitch can be sued for refusing to hire a Muslim job applicant who wore a ...

  20. Lessons From the Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch

    May 9, 2022. Getty Images. The rise, fall, and rebirth of Abercrombie & Fitch is an arc that doubles as a business case study in management practices and brand reinvention. Abercrombie & Fitch was ...

  21. 3 Lessons Organizations Can Learn From The Abercrombie & Fitch ...

    Corporate leaders as well as anyone managing a workplace should watch, as there are several lessons that can be pulled from it. This article highlights three important takeaways from the Netflix ...

  22. Case Study

    By 2021, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. — which owns the namesake label as well as Hollister, Abercrombie Kids and two smaller brands under the Hollister umbrella — was on the rebound. A recent earnings report trumpeted the group's best second-quarter operating income and margin since 2008, with sales exceeding pre-pandemic levels.

  23. Abercrombie & Fitch Sued For Religious Discrimination

    This is the second lawsuit filed by the EEOC against Abercrombie & Fitch for failing to accommodate a Muslim teenager's need to wear a head scarf. The first, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch dba Abercrombie Kids (Case No. 4:09cv602 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma) was filed by the EEOC St. Louis District Office in ...

  24. NRF

    NRF Contributor. February 20, 2024. Retail Gets Real. 337. Inside the digital transformation of Abercrombie & Fitch. 30. 00:00:00 / 00:25:57. 30. Many retailers are going through a digital transformation or digital revolution, but in most cases, that transformation is rooted in the customer and the customer experience.