EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
E165269
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that held employers may not refuse to hire applicants to avoid accommodating their religious practices, even if the need for accommodation is not explicitly stated.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1440251 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Context triple: [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, subjectOf, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.]
-
A.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
-
B.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon is a state agency responsible for administering employment-related services and regulations in Oregon, including unemployment insurance and workforce programs.
-
C.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
County of Allegheny v. ACLU is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the interpretation of the Establishment Clause by addressing the constitutionality of religious holiday displays on government property.
-
D.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
-
E.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Target entity description: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that held employers may not refuse to hire applicants to avoid accommodating their religious practices, even if the need for accommodation is not explicitly stated.
-
A.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
-
B.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon is a state agency responsible for administering employment-related services and regulations in Oregon, including unemployment insurance and workforce programs.
-
C.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
County of Allegheny v. ACLU is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the interpretation of the Establishment Clause by addressing the constitutionality of religious holiday displays on government property.
-
D.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
-
E.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Title VII case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
anti-discrimination law
ⓘ
civil rights law ⓘ employment law ⓘ |
| citation |
135 S. Ct. 2028
ⓘ
192 L. Ed. 2d 35 ⓘ 575 U.S. 768 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2015-06-01 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 14-86 ⓘ |
| factPattern |
Abercrombie & Fitch maintained a "Look Policy" that restricted headwear.
ⓘ
Applicant wore a headscarf to a job interview at Abercrombie & Fitch. ⓘ The company declined to hire the applicant because her headscarf conflicted with its Look Policy. ⓘ |
| holding |
A job applicant need not explicitly inform an employer of a need for religious accommodation for Title VII liability to attach.
ⓘ
An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. ⓘ Title VII prohibits refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice. ⓘ |
| impact |
Clarified standards for religious accommodation in hiring decisions.
ⓘ
Limited employers’ ability to rely on neutral policies to justify refusals to hire when religious practices are involved. ⓘ |
| involvesParty | Samantha Elauf ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| keyPrinciple |
An employer may not avoid accommodating a religious practice by remaining willfully blind to the need for accommodation.
ⓘ
Title VII’s focus is on the employer’s motive, not the employer’s knowledge. ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
disparate treatment under Title VII
ⓘ
employer motive versus employer knowledge ⓘ religious accommodation in employment ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | Judgment for Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ⓘ |
| petitioner | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ⓘ |
| religionInvolved | Islam ⓘ |
| respondent | Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. ⓘ |
| resultForEEOC | EEOC’s claim was allowed to proceed under Title VII. ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ |
| statutoryProvision |
42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j)
ⓘ
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) ⓘ |
| supremeCourtDisposition | Reversed and remanded ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Description of subject: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that held employers may not refuse to hire applicants to avoid accommodating their religious practices, even if the need for accommodation is not explicitly stated.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.