The Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et seq., as amended (“Title VII”), prohibits employers with at least 15 employees (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an Equal Employment Opportunity investigation. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination and it has intervened by the federal body to prevent religious discrimination by corporations which seem to be breaching the law by discriminating against their employees. In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch 575 U.S. ____ (2015), the US Supreme Court held that a religious practice of an employee should be accommodated if it does not cause “undue hardship.” The Court then formulated the principle that applicant does not have to show that the employer had “actual knowledge” of the applicant’s need for accommodation. Instead, the Court held that “an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.” This has given the scope to a Chapter VII definition that stops short of strict liability but binds the employer to facilitate the employee where religious symbols are concerned. This article reviews the recent case law on discrimination in the work place and the disparate treatment test interpreted by the Supreme Court in the framework of employment law for religious employees and argues that the employer’s actual knowledge requirement depends upon the circumstances of each case.

中文翻译：

---

就业歧视、宗教象征和雇主的“实际知识”

1964 年《美国民权法案》第 VII 条、《美国法典》第 2000e 条等第 42 条经修订（“第 VII 条”）禁止拥有至少 15 名雇员的雇主（包括私营部门、州和地方政府雇主），以及职业介绍所、工会和联邦政府机构，不得因种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍而歧视就业。它还禁止对投诉歧视或参与平等就业机会调查的人进行报复。美国平等就业机会委员会 (EEOC) 负责执行禁止工作场所歧视的联邦法律，它已接受联邦机构的干预，以防止公司因歧视其员工而似乎违反法律的宗教歧视。在 EEOC 诉 Abercrombie & Fitch 575 US ____ (2015)，美国最高法院认为，如果员工的宗教活动不会造成“过度困难”，则应予以包容。法院随后制定了一项原则，即申请人不必证明雇主“实际了解”申请人的住宿需求。相反，法院认为“申请人只需证明他对住宿的需求是雇主决定的一个激励因素。” 这为第七章的定义提供了范围，该定义没有严格责任，但约束雇主在涉及宗教象征的情况下为雇员提供便利。