October Term 2014 · Docket 14-86
Does an employer need explicit knowledge of a religious belief to face liability?
The dispute centers on whether an employer must know an applicant's religious belief to face discrimination claims.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The EEOC contends that Abercrombie acted because of the religious basis for the headscarf.
Abercrombie asserts that the EEOC's argument incorrectly assumes the employer acted on religious grounds.
The EEOC argues the Tenth Circuit imposed requirements that eliminated liability for refusal to accommodate.
Abercrombie argues the applicant must verbally request the accommodation to trigger the employer's duty.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The EEOC argues Abercrombie acted on a reasonable assumption of religious belief. Abercrombie claims it lacked explicit knowledge of the applicant's faith.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 7-9
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-21
What each side wants
The EEOC wants the Court to hold that reasonable suspicion of religious belief triggers liability.
Abercrombie wants the Court to require explicit knowledge of the applicant's religious belief for liability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 7-9
What each side says
The EEOC argues that acting on a reasonable assumption of religious belief constitutes discrimination.
Abercrombie argues that liability requires the employer to know the applicant's specific religious belief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 7-9
What the justices asked
Justice Kagan asked how much less than certainty is sufficient for an employer's belief.
Justice Scalia asked what verbs beyond understanding describe the employer's mental state regarding the belief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-37
Why it matters
This case defines the standard for employer liability in religious accommodation disputes. It determines whether reasonable suspicion or explicit knowledge triggers legal responsibility. The outcome shapes hiring practices and accommodation requests nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 7-9
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 7-9
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.