Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner v. Abercrombie — Thomas, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Thomas, in a partial concurrence and dissent, argues that Abercrombie's neutral Look Policy, applied without an exception for a religious headscarf, does not constitute "intentional discrimination" under Title VII and therefore the EEOC cannot recover damages. She maintains that only a disparate‑impact claim, not a disparate‑treatment claim, is appropriate, and would affirm the Tenth Circuit’s judgment. The opinion critiques the majority’s expanded reading of "intentional discrimination" and emphasizes the traditional requirement of discriminatory purpose.