The United States Supreme Court sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today against the well-known clothing store chain Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., on a claim of religious discrimination.

The Court held that Abercrombie did not have to have actual knowledge of a job applicant’s need for a religious accommodation if the unsuccessful job applicant could establish that her need for accommodation of a religious practice was a motivating factor in the decision to deny her employment. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86, June 1, 2015.

The job applicant in this case, Samantha Elauf, interviewed for a position at Abercrombie. In keeping with her Muslim faith, she wore a headscarf to the interview. She did not discuss and was not asked about the headscarf during the interview. Based on the company’s ordinary rating system, Elauf was deemed qualified for the job.

The assistant manager who interviewed Elauf believed, however, that Elauf wore the headscarf because she was Muslim and was concerned the headscarf would violate Abercrombie’s dress code policy that prohibited employees from wearing “caps” in its stores. After making an inquiry, the assistant manager was told by her district manager that all headwear, religious or not, would violate the policy and, as a result, Elauf was not offered the job.

Abercrombie argued that Elauf could not show she was treated differently from other applicants based on religion because: (1) Abercrombie did not have “actual knowledge” of Elauf’s need for an accommodation of the dress code policy; and (2) the dress code was a neutral policy that prohibited headwear of all types whether worn as part of a religious observance or not.

The Court rejected Abercrombie’s argument that in order to be found liable for religious discrimination it had to have actual knowledge of Elauf’s need for an accommodation. The Court stated that “an applicant need only show that [her] need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.”

The evidence in this case established that the assistant manager believed Elauf wore the headscarf because she was Muslim and, after confirming with the district manager, rejected Elauf’s application because her headscarf would have violated the dress code policy. The Court stated that an “employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

The Court also rejected Abercrombie’s argument that it did not discriminate because the dress code was a neutral policy that prohibited all headwear. The Court stated that Title VII gives “favored treatment” to religious practices. Accordingly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) “requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”