If You Have Not Already Done So, View The Video 'Equal Emplo ✓ Solved

If you have not already done so, view the video 'Equal Emplo

If you have not already done so, view the video "Equal Employment Commission" in which Earl explains the basics of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Based on the video, the readings, and independent research, explain your understanding of the authority and role of the EEOC. Research a case involving the EEOC, outline the facts, the EEOC's involvement, and the verdict, and state whether you agree with the decision and why. You may examine the Hooters case from the early 1990s and add your thoughts on that scenario.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper summarizes the authority and role of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), presents a researched case in which the EEOC was involved, and offers evaluative commentary, including brief thoughts on the Hooters scenario referenced in the assignment prompt. The analysis draws on statutory sources, agency guidance, judicial decisions, and academic commentary (EEOC, 2024; Cornell LII, n.d.).

Authority and Role of the EEOC

The EEOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and several other federal anti-discrimination laws. Its authority springs principally from Title VII and related statutes, which prohibit employment discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national origin, age (40+), disability, and genetic information (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; EEOC, 2024). The agency's core roles include: investigation of discrimination complaints; charge intake and initial counseling/mediation; issuance of "right-to-sue" notices if conciliation fails; administrative and district-court litigation (including pattern-or-practice suits); issuing guidance and regulations; and public education and outreach (EEOC, 2024).

Practically, the EEOC acts as both investigator and conciliator before litigation. It has subpoena authority in certain circumstances and can file lawsuits in federal court when it finds reasonable cause or when it deems litigation in the public interest. The agency also develops guidance on statutory interpretation (e.g., religious accommodation, sexual harassment, and disability accommodations) and collaborates with state Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) to enforce anti-discrimination laws (EEOC, 2024; Cornell LII, n.d.).

Case Study: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015)

Facts

The applicant, a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf for religious reasons, applied for a sales position at an Abercrombie & Fitch store. Store management believed the company's "Look Policy" prohibited head coverings that would not match the brand image and did not hire her. The EEOC charged Abercrombie with religious discrimination under Title VII, alleging the employer failed to hire the applicant because of a religious practice that could have been accommodated (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 2015; SCOTUSblog, 2015).

Procedural History and Verdict

The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court as EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The central legal question was whether Title VII requires an applicant to explicitly inform the employer of a need for a religious accommodation in order to obtain protection. In a decision for the EEOC, the Court held that an employer may not make an applicant's need for a religious accommodation a factor in an employment decision, and that an applicant does not need to show the employer had actual knowledge of the need; it is sufficient to show that the need for accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision (575 U.S. 768, 2015; Oyez, 2015). The ruling clarified that an employer who hires or fires based on avoidance of an accommodation can be liable even where the applicant did not explicitly request accommodation.

Analysis of the Decision

The Supreme Court's decision aligns with Title VII's protective purpose: to prevent employers from taking adverse actions based on protected characteristics or practices. Requiring an explicit accommodation request would place an undue burden on applicants and allow employers to avoid liability through willful ignorance. The ruling therefore reinforces the EEOC's enforcement role in protecting religious minorities and clarifies employer obligations concerning neutral appearance policies and workplace accommodations (SCOTUSblog, 2015; EEOC guidance on religious discrimination, 2024).

I agree with the Court's decision. The doctrine that liability can attach when an employer acts with an impermissible motive—regardless of whether the applicant phrased a formal accommodation request—protects employees and applicants who may reasonably expect that their religious practices need not be shielded by explicit procedural steps. It also incentivizes employers to train hiring personnel and to evaluate "neutral" appearance policies for discriminatory effects.

Reflections on the Hooters Scenario

The Hooters scenario raises recurring doctrinal questions about sex-based hiring and the "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) defense. Hooters historically emphasized female servers as central to its brand and sometimes defended female-only hiring by invoking customer preference and brand image. Courts generally treat BFOQ defenses narrowly; customer preference alone is rarely a legally sufficient justification for sex-based discrimination (Cornell LII, BFOQ overview). The EEOC's involvement in disputes about Hooters highlights the agency's function in testing the boundaries between legitimate employer needs and impermissible stereotyping or sex-based exclusion.

My view is that brand image does not automatically excuse discriminatory hiring practices. Employers can often restructure job designs, use neutral policies, or identify alternative non-discriminatory ways to preserve brand identity without excluding protected groups. EEOC enforcement in brand-image disputes serves an important normative and remedial purpose: it forces employers to justify narrowly tailored, job-related necessities rather than rely on customer bias (EEOC guidance; legal commentary on BFOQ doctrine).

Conclusion

The EEOC plays a central role in enforcing Title VII and related statutes by investigating charges, attempting conciliation, litigating cases, and issuing policy guidance. The Supreme Court's decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch confirms the agency's protective mandate and clarifies that employees and applicants need not formally request an accommodation to obtain Title VII protection when an employer's decision was motivated by an intent to avoid accommodation (Abercrombie, 2015). The Hooters disputes underscore how the EEOC tests employer defenses such as BFOQ and customer preference. Overall, the EEOC's investigative and enforcement authority remains essential for identifying discriminatory practices and helping to recalibrate employer policies to comply with federal anti-discrimination law.

References

  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). "About EEOC." https://www.eeoc.gov/
  • Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/title_vii
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015). Opinion and case materials: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf
  • SCOTUSblog. "EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch." Case page and analysis. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/eeoc-v-abercrombie-fitch/
  • Oyez. "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. EEOC." Case summary and audio. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-86
  • EEOC Guidance on Religious Discrimination and Accommodation. https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
  • Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bona_fide_occupational_qualification
  • American Bar Association (ABA) Journal. Analysis pieces on Abercrombie decision and workplace religious accommodation. https://www.abajournal.com/
  • Scholarly commentary on customer preference and sex discrimination (overview articles and law reviews discussing Hooters and BFOQ doctrine). Example: law review surveys on employment discrimination and brand-based defenses (available via academic databases).
  • General press coverage and historical reporting on Hooters and employment discrimination (e.g., national newspapers and legal reporting archives providing contemporaneous accounts of Hooters-era disputes).

Related Assignments