News Releases
March 5, 2015

At the beginning of the closely-watched oral argument in the matter of the EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. (heard on Feb. 25, 2015), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wondered, “What is the difference between knowing and correctly understanding?” While a bit arcane, that question lies at the heart of the case—when does an employer “know” that an applicant has a need for a reasonable religious accommodation (such that refusal to accommodate imputes liability onto the employer)? Specifically, the Court was asked to decide whether actual notice to the employer is required to trigger an accommodation obligation, or is something less than actual notice sufficient to trigger the duty to consider accommodations?

WAFS interviewed Polsinelli's Jim Swartz about the issue for the Dana Barrett show. Swartz is a shareholder who advises management on employment issues.

To hear the radio interview, click here