• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Courthouse Columns
Main image for Attorneys React To High Court’s EEOC v. Abercrombie Ruling
News|Quote

Attorneys React To High Court’s EEOC v. Abercrombie Ruling

Law360

6.1.2015

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. that in order to prevail on a disparate treatment claim, a job applicant only has to show that her need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of the need. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision is significant.

Peter D. Stergios, McCarter & English LLP
“This will force—wrongly, in my view—employers to have discussions with job candidates and employees about whether workplace rules can be accommodated. The court’s analysis here is consistent with earlier holdings under Title VII where courts couldn’t find a basis for discrimination on the merits, but have found retaliation. However, this decision suggests a hidden presumption: that employers, without being told, must assume that certain dress might have a religious justification, requiring accommodation. But where does this all end? Nose rings? Tattoos? Abercrombie has hinted it won’t give up the fight, so it will be interesting what occurs on remand.”

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Peter D. Stergios
Peter D. Stergios

Partner

Related Services

Labor & Employment
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel