The Commission’s argument is that, Abercrombie practiced intentional discrimination for failing to accommodate Elauf’s religion practice. They also claim that Title VII favors all religious practices, and they should treat them fairly and not worse than others. Contrary Abercrombie argue that the claims against them must not be raised as a disparate-treatment claim but as a disparate-impact claim. Primarily, Abercrombie argues that the applicant cannot claim of disparate treatment without first revealing the employer’s actual knowledge of the applicant’s need for an accommodation (www.law.cornell.edu)
The issues raised concerns violation of Title VII. The Commission claims that Abercrombie has increased conflicts among religious practices. According to Title VII, the law prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an individual because of religion affiliation, the difference in race or nationality (www.law.cornell.edu). Also, it is unlawful to segregate the applicants for employment. Therefore, such practice will limit their chances of getting employed, or it will affect their status as employees.
The outcome of these issues is depicted when the court is urged to adopt the Tenth Circuit rule. Abercrombie claims that they have been allocated the burden of religious conflicts, and this led to the case being reversed. However, in the District Court, EEOC were victorious but the Tenth Circuit reversed the case. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit decided to award judgment to Abercrombie. The verdict stipulates that failure-to-accommodate liability add value only in cases where the employee provides knowledge of his or her need to be