The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Abercrombie & Fitch in a dispute over its decision not to hire a 17-year-old Muslim girl who wore a headscarf that would have violated the store's notorious "look policy."

The dispute centered on a federal law that requires employers to "reasonably accommodate" workers' religions or disabilities.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued on behalf of Samantha Elauf, who wore the offending headscarf to her Abercrombie interview.

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the high court ruled that job applicants don't need to show that an employer knew that a job applicant needed special accommodation for their religious beliefs to claim they were treated differently because of those beliefs, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Abercrombie's primary argument is that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment without first showing an employer had 'actual knowledge' of the applicant's need for accommodation. We disagree," Scalia wrote.

The high court rejected Abercrombie's argument that it didn't violate Title VII because it never got "direct, explicit notice" from Elauf that her religious practice conflicted with Abercrombie's look policy.

In its decision, the Supreme Court said such explicit notice wasn't necessary for a job applicant to bring a Title VII claim.

View photos Samantha Elauf Abercrombie religious discrimination More

"For example, suppose that an employer thinks (though he does not know for certain) that a job applicant may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath, and thus be unable to work on Saturdays," the court wrote.

"If the applicant actually requires an accommodation of that religious practice, and the employer's desire to avoid the prospective accommodation is a motivating factor in his decision, the employer violates Title VII."

The Supreme Court's decision reverses an appellate decision that had ruled in favor of Abercrombie, sending the case back to the court for further review.

"This case relates to events occurring in 2008. A&F has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion, and consistent with the law, has granted numerous religious accommodations when requested, including hijabs," Abercrombie said in a statement. (You can read Abercrombie's entire statement at the end of this article.)

The justices agreed to hear Elauf's case in October, and in December "friend of the court" briefs supporting her case flooded in from the ACLU, several states, and the American Jewish Committee, as well as gay-rights and religious-liberty groups.

Elauf, who's now a fashion blogger in her 20s, applied for a job as an Abercrombie model in Tulsa, Oklahoma, back when she was 17, according to a legal document filed by the EEOC.

At Abercrombie, "models" were sales associates who are expected to model the store's style in compliance with its look policy. Now models are referred to as "brand representatives."

An Abercrombie assistant manager considered Elauf a "good candidate" but wasn't sure whether her headscarf violated Abercrombie's so-called look policy, according to the EEOC brief.

That assistant manager consulted a manager, explaining that she thought Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons. The manager said the headscarf wasn't permitted, even if Elauf wore it because she was a Muslim, according to the EEOC.

Elauf didn't get the job, and the EEOC brought its case against the preppy retail giant.

In a brief it filed in the case, Abercrombie wrote:

an applicant or employee cannot remain silent before the employer regarding the religious nature of his or her conflicting practice and need for an accommodation and still hope to prevail in a religion-accommodation case.

