CASE 132,EEOC V

CASE 13.2,EEOC v.Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,Inc.(2013) involved a question of whether a clothing retailer violated Title VII when it refused to hire a Muslim woman-applicant because she wore a head scarf in violation of its company dress code,and whether the applicant gave proper notice of a religious accommodation.How did the court rule?

A) That the employer did not violate Title VII becausethe employer did not have to accommodate the wearing of the scarf because wearing the scarf involved a cultural practice, not a practice required by the potential employee's religion.
B) That the employer did not violate Title VII becausethe employer did not have to accommodate the wearing of the scarf because the employer established that it did not involve a sincerely held religious belief on the part of the potential employee.
C) That the employer did not violate Title VII becausethe employer did not have to accommodate the wearing of the scarf because such accommodation would place an undue hardship on the employer.
D) That the employer did not violate Title VII because the applicant failed to give proper notice of a religious accommodation.