Expert answer:Case Brief: equal employment opportunity
Answer & Explanation:I have uploaded the detailed description of what and how this Brief must be done. Please read and follow directions. I also loaded the requested reading needed to better understand what she is looking forcase_brief_assignment.pdf5the_case_equal_employment_opportunity_commission_v_abercrombie.pdf1courts_alternative_dispute_resolution_wk2.pdf2how_to_read_a_legal_opinion.pdf3how_to_read_a_sc_case.pdf
case_brief_assignment.pdf
5the_case_equal_employment_opportunity_commission_v_abercrombie.pdf
1courts_alternative_dispute_resolution_wk2.pdf
2how_to_read_a_legal_opinion.pdf
3how_to_read_a_sc_case.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
UMUC BMGT 380 – Business Law I (2016 Spring I)
Case Brief Assignment
To fully understand the law with respect to business, you need to be able to read
and understand court decisions. To make this task easier, you can use a method of
case analysis that is called briefing.
THE CASE
For this Assignment, you will read and brief a case called Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States. This is a case about a woman who was not hired for a job for which she would have
needed a religious accommodation required by Title VII.
Title VII is a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bans employment discrimination
based on a worker’s or applicant’s sex, race, national origin, religion, or color. This law
grew out of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, and was an effort to end
discrimination based on race, sex, or religion. The law prohibited many forms of
discrimination, including discrimination in public accommodations, government services,
and employment.
Title VII says an employer cannot discriminate against a worker based on his or her
religious belief, observance, or practice. An employer must make an effort to accommodate
employees’ religious practices, unless it would cause an “undue hardship” on the
employer’s business. These adjustments to the work environment could include flexible
scheduling or exceptions to a dress code, for example. An employer faces an undue
hardship when the adjustment has more than a minimal burden on the operation of a
business. As an example, an accommodation like allowing an employee to pray during work
breaks would not be an undue hardship, while accommodating a religious belief that
requires men and women to be separate at all times could be.
A person’s religion is not always visually apparent; therefore, it can be difficult to know
which employees need accommodations for their religious practices. This is a case about
whether the woman was required to notify the employer that she needed the
accommodation, or whether the employer (having correctly guessed she would need one)
was required to ask
1
HOW TO BRIEF THE CASE
Prior to reading the case, you will need to complete Week 2 reading called “Courts and
Alternative Dispute Resolution” so that you gain a general understanding of how courts
work and what certain legal terms (like “summary judgment”) mean.
Week 2 readings include three short guides on reading, understanding and briefing cases,
so before you read the actual case, you need to read these guides:
▪ “How to Read Legal Opinions”
▪ “How to Read a Supreme Court Case”
▪ “How to Brief and Analyze Cases”
After your read these guides, you are ready to start reading the case. Don’t be intimidated
by its length – actually, this is a rather short opinion for a typical Supreme Court case!
Legal opinions include a lot of in-text citations – these are basically references to specific
legal rules and principles on which judges rely in writing their opinions. Citations can refer
to an earlier court case or a codified law or some other source of law that the
judges/justices rely upon in their legal reasoning. Citations can look like this:
University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U. S.
(2013)
This specific citation refers to an earlier Supreme Court case called “University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar” and the numbers are simply a citation to the case –
this information allows you to look up the case yourself, if you wish. With this citation, the
Court is basically showing that it is following the doctrine of stare decisis and is deciding
this case with reference to former decisions (precedents).
Some citations refer to federal law and look like this:
42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)
The “U.S.C.” stands for “United States Code” which is the official collection of all federal
laws. Here the discussion concerns the law about unlawful employment practices and that
law can be found in Section 2000e-2(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code, which is the
part of the US Code that contains laws regarding public health and welfare.
You do not need to focus on citations for this assignment, just understand what they are. To
help make the case easier to read, I have greyed out all citations that are not critical to
understanding this case or completing this assignment.
2
CASE BRIEF
Your case brief must contains the following sections and address all of the questions below:
Citation and Case Information
▪ What is the full name of the case?
▪ When was it decided (exact date)?
▪ What is the citation for this case? (Hint: look at the top of the first page of the main
opinion)
▪ Which Justice authored the main opinion?
▪ Which Justices joined in the main opinion?
Facts of the Case
▪ Who is Elauf and why did she sue Abercrombie & Fitch?
▪ What is EEOC and why is it a part of this case?
▪ What arguments do Elauf and EEOC make as to why the Court should find in their favor?
▪ What counter-arguments does A&F make?
Procedural History
▪ What court was the trial court in this case (i.e. which court first heard this case)? How did
the trial court decide the case?
▪ Was there an appeal from the trial court’s decision? If so, which of the parties appealed
and what did the appellate court decide?
▪ How did the case get to the Supreme Court?
▪ What kind of jurisdiction does the Supreme Court have here – appellate or original?
Explain.
Legal Disputes and Issues
▪ Is the Court interpreting the Constitution or a statute? Which provision of the Constitution
or which federal statute is at issue here?
▪ What are the legal question(s) of this case?
Holding
▪ What did the Court hold (i.e. did the Court affirm, reverse, void, vacate or remand)?
Analysis and Reasoning
▪ What are the reasons given by the Court for its decision? What case law or statutory law
did the Court rely on in arriving at its decision?
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
▪ What does “concurring opinion” mean (i.e. why didn’t this Justice just join the main
opinion of the Court)? Are there any concurring opinions in this case? If so, who wrote the
concurring opinion(s) and what arguments did the concurring opinion(s) make?
▪ What does “dissenting opinion” mean? Are there any dissenting opinions in this case? If
so, who wrote the dissenting opinion(s) and what arguments did the dissenting opinion(s)
make?
3
GRADING
This assignment is worth up to 50 points towards the “Written Assignments and Quizzes”
part of your final grade and will be graded as follows:
Citation and Case
Information
(worth up to 5
points)
Facts of the Case
(worth up to 5
points)
Procedural History
(worth up to 8
points)
Excellent
Good
Accurately
and
thoroughly
answers all
the
questions
posed in this
section
Answers all
the questions
in this
section but
not all
responses
are complete
and clear OR
responses
contain a
couple of
minor errors
Answers all
the
questions in
this section
but not all
responses
are
complete
and clear
OR
responses
contain a
couple of
minor
errors
Answers all the
questions in
this section but
not all
responses are
complete and
clear OR
responses
contain a
couple of minor
errors
Accurately
and
thoroughly
answers all
the
questions
posed in
this section
Accurately
and
thoroughly
answers all
the
questions
posed in
this section
Fair
Poor
Does not meet
requirements
Missing more
than two
questions OR
does not contain
this section at all
Missing
one
question OR
responses
contain
more
serious
errors or
more than a
couple of
minor
errors
Missing
one question
OR responses
contain more
serious errors
or more than a
couple of
minor errors
Missing two
Questions OR
responses contain
major errors that
evidence
misunderstanding or
misreading of the
case
Missing two
Questions OR
responses contain
major errors that
evidence
misunderstanding or
misreading of the
case
Missing more
than two
questions OR
does not
contain this
section at all
Missing
one question
OR responses
contain more
serious errors
or more than
a couple of
minor errors
Missing two
Questions OR
responses contain
major errors that
evidence
misunderstanding
or misreading of
the case
Missing more
than two
questions OR
does not contain
this section at all
4
Legal
Disputes
and
Issues
(worth up to
7 points)
Holding
(worth up
to 2 points)
Analysis
and
Reasoning
(worth up
to 10
points)
Concurring
and
Dissenting
Opinions
(worth up
to 8 points)
Accurately
and
thoroughly
answers all
the
questions
posed in
this section
Accurately
and
thoroughly
answers all
the questions
posed in this
section
Accurately
and
thoroughly
answers all
the questions
posed in this
section
Accurately
and
thoroughly
answers all
the questions
posed in this
section
Answers all the
questions in
this section but
not all
responses are
complete and
clear OR
responses
contain a
couple of
minor errors
Answers all the
questions in
this section but
not all
responses are
complete and
clear OR
responses
contain a
couple of minor
errors
Answers all the
questions in
this section but
not all
responses are
complete and
clear OR
responses
contain a
couple of minor
errors
Answers all the
questions in
this section but
not all
responses are
complete and
clear OR
responses
contain a
couple of minor
errors
Missing
one question
OR responses
contain more
serious errors
or more than
a couple of
minor errors
Missing two
Questions OR
responses contain
major errors that
evidence
misunderstanding or
misreading of the
case
Missing more
than two
questions OR
does not contain
this section at all
Missing
one question
OR responses
contain more
serious errors or
more than a
couple of minor
errors
Missing two
Questions OR
responses contain
major errors that
evidence
misunderstanding or
misreading of the
case
Missing more
than two
questions OR
does not contain
this section at all
Missing
one question
OR responses
contain more
serious errors or
more than a
couple of minor
errors
Missing two
Questions OR
responses contain
major errors that
evidence
misunderstanding or
misreading of the
case
Missing more
than two
questions OR
does not contain
this section at all
Missing
one question
OR responses
contain more
serious errors or
more than a
couple of minor
errors
Missing two
Questions OR
responses contain
major errors that
evidence
misunderstanding or
misreading of the
case
Missing more
than two
questions OR
does not contain
this section at all
5
No errors in
grammar or
spelling
Wellorganized
and easy to
read
Grammar,
mechanics and
APA
(worth up to 5
points)
Any research
used is
properly
cited both intext and in a
separate
“References”
section.
Minor errors in Several
issues with
grammar or
grammar
spelling
errors cause
lack of clarity
OR
Errors in
paper create
difficulty in
understanding the
paper
Minor
organizational
issues
OR Major
organizational
issues
OR
OR
OR
Minor citation
and references
issue
Several
Citation and
OR
references issue
Major
citation/references
issues
Paper is difficult to
follow due to
organizational
issues
The paper
cannot be read
due to
numerous errors
and mistakes or
organizational
issues
OR
No in-text
citation AND no
“References”
section (please
see additional
note below)
Any verbatim
material is
properly
quoted
PLEASE NOTE that you must make proper references to all sources of information you use
in your assignment. The references must be made both in the text of your paper and at the
end of it, in a separate “Works Cited” or “References” list.
Failure to properly reference all the outside material used in the assignment may result in
the grade of zero for the assignment and may violate the UMUC Policy 150.25 on Academic
Dishonesty and Plagiarism.
6
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2014
1
Syllabus
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
Syllabus
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–86. Argued February 25, 2015—Decided June 1, 2015
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-
2
EEOC v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.
Syllabus
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.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.,
joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. THOMAS,
J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Cite as: 575 U. S.
(2015)
1
Opinion of the Court
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.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14–86
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
[June 1, 2015]
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.
I
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
2
EEOC v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.
Opinion of the Court
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).
II
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 253, as
amended, prohibits two categories of employment practices. It is unlawful for an employer:
“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any indi-
Cite as: 575 U. S.
(2015)
3
Opinion of the Court
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
——————
1 For
brevity’s sake, we will in the balance of this opini …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades