Facts

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and plaintiff-in-intervention, Umme-Hani Khan, filed a complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. d/b/a Hollister, Hollister California LLC alleging employment discrimination. Plaintiff-intervenor sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief.

Abercrombie operated retail stores around the country under the brand names Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister Co., Abercrombie kids, and Gilly Hicks.

Kahn, a Muslim, began working for a Hollister store in San Mateo. At the time of her hire, she wore a hijab as dictated by her religion. She wore a headscarf when she interviewed for her position, and when she was hired, she acknowledged and agreed to abide by Abercrombie's policies, including the Look Policy. Khan wore a headscarf to work from October 2009 until her termination in February 2010.

The EEOC and Kahn jointly filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its religious accommodations claim and Abercrombie's affirmative defenses based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, undue hardship, and infringement of its right to commercial free speech. Abercrombie filed a motion seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' claim for failure to conciliate.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendant maintained a "Look Policy," a grooming policy regarding employees' appearance and clothing that employees were required to adhere to while at work. It required employees to wear clothing similar to those sold by the retailer, and prohibited employees from wearing head wear. Plaintiff contended that she wore a headscarf at work since she began working for the company, and that her supervisors allowed her to wear her headscarf as long as it matched the company's colors. Moreover, plaintiff claimed that her store managers never informed her that she was not in compliance with the company's Look Policy. Plaintiff was suspended, and later terminated, for failing to comply with the company's Look Policy, and her refusal to remove her hijab was cited as the sole reason for her suspension and eventual termination. She declined the company's unconditional offer of reinstatement with accommodation. Plaintiffs contended that defendant's conduct constituted religious discrimination.

Result

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted plaintiffs' motion on Abercrombie's affirmative defense that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and denied Abercrombie's cross-motion seeking dismissal for failure to conciliate. Addressing the merits, the court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Abercrombie's affirmative defenses for failure to exhaust, undue hardship, and infringement of right to commercial free speech. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their claims that Abercrombie failed to accommodate Kahn's religious beliefs. The court then denied Abercrombie's cross-motion for summary judgment.