Eleanor E. v. New York State vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

Both *Eleanor E. v. New York State* and *Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores* address fundamental issues of civil rights and discrimination in different employment contexts, illustrating the evolving interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. In *Eleanor E.*, the Second Circuit examined the state's failure to adequately provide a safe environment for Eleanor, who claimed she faced harassment in her workplace because of her gender. The case highlights the obligations of state actors to protect individuals from discrimination. Conversely, *Abercrombie & Fitch* concerned whether an employer could deny employment based on a candidate's religious attire without accommodations—specifically, a headscarf in this instance. The Supreme Court ruled that an applicant does not need to expressly notify the employer of the religious need for an accommodation for discrimination to be established.

The similarities between the cases lie in their focus on the protected classes and the interpretation of disparate treatment. Both cases establish that employers (or state entities) have a duty to consider the needs of individuals and are prohibited from making employment decisions that disadvantage individuals based on gender or religion. Furthermore, both cases signal a significant judicial commitment to upholding civil rights protections within the employment context, emphasizing that discrimination is often systemic and requires active measures for redress.

Notably, the differences between them manifest in their legal approaches and implications. *Eleanor E.* emphasizes state responsibility and civil service obligations to provide a discrimination-free work environment. In contrast, *Abercrombie* emphasizes private employer obligations and addresses a broader interpretation of religious discrimination, expanding the precedent for what constitutes a failure to accommodate. Additionally, while *Eleanor E.* resulted in an assessment of the workplace environment's adequacy, *Abercrombie* resulted in a clearer directive that employers must consider and accommodate an applicant's religious practices even when they have not been explicitly communicated.

In an exam setting, *Eleanor E.* can be cited when discussing state actors' obligations under civil rights laws, particularly in cases of harassment or hostile work environments. *Abercrombie & Fitch*, on the other hand, is pertinent for illustrating the nuances of employer obligations related to religion and accommodation. Together, these cases underscore the necessity for a proactive approach to preventing discrimination, demonstrating that both public entities and private employers must navigate civil rights laws responsibly. They reveal the ongoing judicial commitment to interpreting civil rights protections expansively, which serves to evolve and strengthen the commitment against discrimination in all forms.