A British woman is suing U.S. clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Co., saying her prosthetic arm made her the subject of ridicule and that she was sent to work in the stock room for violating the company's "look policy."

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...or_discrimination_after_being.html

Dont know how much of this is true but would be surprised if they can get away with it if is true. Currently being heard in the UK courts and awaiting outcome.

I know in the past A&F have been involved in Race issues also.

Sounds true, use to work there.

If you didn't look good you were told we were NOT hiring or you worked in the stock room.

Quoting Vapar8 (Reply 2): Sounds true, use to work there. If you didn't look good you were told we were NOT hiring or you worked in the stock room.

Wow, I remember when A & F was a stuffy men's outdoor store. They sold guns, hunting clothes, tents, etc. I remember the store at a local mall, in St. Louis, being a place that no teens wanted to hang out in. A few short years later no grown man would set foot in one.

How do model agencies get around the whole "look policy"? Clearly they discriminate on all sorts of characteristics.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4): How do model agencies get around the whole "look policy"? Clearly they discriminate on all sorts of characteristics.

Must have something to do with a candidate's potential to book shoots and other modeling jobs. They can probably justify not investing in an "ugly" or less than 100% attractive person because there is likely less return on the investment.

That's the best I can think of...

Just about everyone I've spoken to who's worked there or knew people who worked there said that the company puts forth an "image" akin to Hitler's super race ideals. Everyone who works there is above average to good looking.... no minorities need apply though. That's all well and good though, because people nowadays vote with their pocketbooks... if there are enough Aryans to make A&F profitable, then more power to them... I'll just take my money elsewhere.

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 6): Everyone who works there is above average to good looking.... no minorities need apply though. That's all well and good though, because people nowadays vote with their pocketbooks... if there are enough Aryans to make A&F profitable, then more power to them... I'll just take my money elsewhere.

Not quite so depending on their local market. Back in the day when it was cool to work there, at least where I went to high school in California, you could walk into the local store and see all the slinky black cheerleader-wannabes and prissy Asian sexpots your heart desired. At least most of us guys were never complaining. Haven't been back in some years so I don't know who they've got working there now.

I have to say its a shame as I do like their stuff. They also have the most amazing aftershave called Fierce, some of you probably know it. Tommy Hilfiger also had bad press, IIRC he said that ( Quote ) '' If he knew Blacks and Latinos were going to wear his clothes he wouldnt have designed them so well''. Thats what I read anyway.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 1): Other stores with more moderate prices (H&M, American Eagle, et al) have gained as sell clothes, not sex in their ads.

You think that a store that uses Stephanie Seymour and Salma Hayek as models isn't selling sex? They are just less sleezy about it.

Quoting San747 (Reply 5): Must have something to do with a candidate's potential to book shoots and other modeling jobs. They can probably justify not investing in an "ugly" or less than 100% attractive person because there is likely less return on the investment.

There's got to be some kind of legal cover though; perhaps if your look is critical to the job (as opposed to flight attendants, for example, where it's not).

Quoting OA260 (Reply 8): They also have the most amazing aftershave called Fierce, some of you probably know it.

Yeah, the most amazingly BAD aftershave. You get smacked with the overwhelming stench of that crap if you walk within 50 feet of the entrance of an A&F store.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 8): Tommy Hilfiger also had bad press, IIRC he said that ( Quote ) '' If he knew Blacks and Latinos were going to wear his clothes he wouldnt have designed them so well''. Thats what I read anyway.

Malicious internet rumor that was debunked a long time ago. He never said any such thing.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/tommy-hilfiger-rumour.html

These are pretty funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3-WzqfbVHU

Quoting Kevi747 (Reply 11): Yeah, the most amazingly BAD aftershave.

NOOOO its lovely .

Quoting OA260 (Reply 12): NOOOO its lovely .

Hey, "To each, her own..."   but I get a headache just thinking about that smell.

Quoting Kevi747 (Reply 13): but I get a headache just thinking about that smell.

Well I guess I can let you off , its not your fault lol.. Theres a certain Anetter that wears it and Im jealous that he has a bottle and I have run out . A trip to New York is on the cards !!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10): There's got to be some kind of legal cover though; perhaps if your look is critical to the job (as opposed to flight attendants, for example, where it's not).

Yep - Hooters can get away with it too, I believe (part of the Hooters experience unique to the chain).

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10): There's got to be some kind of legal cover though; perhaps if your look is critical to the job (as opposed to flight attendants, for example, where it's not).

Since when has selling clothes required beauty? Does Walmart know about this requirement? I can understand the need for attractive models but if a store needs attractive salespeople then airlines should be able to get away with hiring only attractive flight attendants.

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 15): Yep - Hooters can get away with it too

Not in Austria, at least in my experience!  

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4): How do model agencies get around the whole "look policy"? Clearly they discriminate on all sorts of characteristics.

The models are not employed by the agency,they pay the agency to find them work so the agency can pick and choose who they work for on the basis of who is likely to pay them the most

Quoting N867DA (Reply 16): I can understand the need for attractive models but if a store needs attractive salespeople

What's the difference? Aren't both ultimately trying to sell you clothes?

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 15): Yep - Hooters can get away with it too, I believe (part of the Hooters experience unique to the chain).

I know they got sued by a guy that wanted to be a Hooters girl. How do they get away with not hiring men or uggos? Looks are obviously not job critical to carrying a tray .

Quoting Trident3 (Reply 17): The models are not employed by the agency,they pay the agency to find them work so the agency can pick and choose who they work for on the basis of who is likely to pay them the most

Well somebody, somewhere, is discriminating on looks. I'm just curious how they get around the laws that prohibit that.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18): What's the difference? Aren't both ultimately trying to sell you clothes?

The model is advertising clothes. The salesperson is assisting the customer. While both of them are indeed ultimately selling clothes their job description is completely different.

The issue in this case is not that the salesgirl was not attractive enough to sell A&F clothes but that her disability led to discrimination in the workplace.

Discrimination in the workplace due to disability is an area where legislation has been beefed up in the UK.

Quoting OA260 (Thread starter): A British woman is suing U.S. clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Co., saying her prosthetic arm made her the subject of ridicule and that she was sent to work in the stock room for violating the company's "look policy." http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...or_discrimination_after_being.html Dont know how much of this is true but would be surprised if they can get away with it if is true. Currently being heard in the UK courts and awaiting outcome. I know in the past A&F have been involved in Race issues also.

Hard to believe A&F would have such myopic discriminatory views on a woman missing an arm, her prosthesis looks very good in fact.

Don't know how it works in other countries, but here in the US, A&F pretty much has a "whites only" policy. This has tainted them in my eyes. Every time I see someone with their clothing on I feel disgusted, sorry I know it is very popular in some circles. Whenever I see someone in their clothes who is not "the look" (read white, fit, and cookie-cutter) I wonder why they would put that on. I will not even set foot in their stores.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4): How do model agencies get around the whole "look policy"? Clearly they discriminate on all sorts of characteristics.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10): There's got to be some kind of legal cover though; perhaps if your look is critical to the job (as opposed to flight attendants, for example, where it's not).

Yep - the legal cover is called a "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The idea is that some positions require, or at least allow, employers to consider certain attributes that would otherwise be considered illegal discrimination under the Civil Rights Acts, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. Burden of proof of whether or not the discrimination constitutes a BFOQ lies with the employer.

Classic example is in the entertainment industry: if you're casting a movie about Abraham Lincoln, you only have to consider tall white males over a certain age for Abe, it's perfectly legal to not consider women, blacks, Asians, short people, whatever.

Another example is a strength requirement - for example, a butcher's shop can require that a butcher be able to handle sides of beef, or a package delivery firm that delivers large parcels can require the ability to lift a certain amount of weight, even if those requirements have a disparate impact on women, provided the employer can prove the requirement is legitimate.

It starts to get a little stickier when you move away from obvious examples like that. The courts have upheld, for example, that athletic supplement stores can refuse to hire obese people, as they don't represent the product well. At least that's true under US Federal law, where overweight people are not a protected class under the CRAs or the ADA - the courts have been quite clear on that. However, some states and cities have laws granting additional protection - an overweight woman in San Francisco won a case against a health club that refused to hire her as an aerobic instructor...she proved she was, in fact, aerobically fit enough to teach the class and local law did not accept appearance (for marketing purposes) as a BFOQ.

Now the case in question is in England, and I don't know how similar (or not) British law and EU regulations are to ours. I believe the concept of the BFOQ is rooted in Common Law, though, so unless UK law specifically disallows it, A&F can argue that appearance is a legitimate marketing tool and that her prosthetic arm (or, according to the article, the sweater that she was initially allowed to cover it with) weren't compatible with the store's marketing image.

Unless there are specifics to the UK law I'm not aware of, though, I think A&F may lose this one - she's quite pretty, I actually didn't notice the prosthetic for a few seconds, and I think A&F will be hard-pressed to argue that the prosthetic detracts from her appearance enough to make it an issue, and unless she deliberately concealed it during the hiring process, they had already accepted it by hiring her and putting her on the sales floor.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18): I know they got sued by a guy that wanted to be a Hooters girl.

The Federal Court chucked the case - ruled the restaurant format was an entertainment concept and therefore having only female servers (and those, in turn, having to meet appearance requirements), was a BFOQ. The Labor Department apparently chose not to appeal. The huge billboards showing a fat, hairy man in a Hooters Girl uniform that Hooters put up in some cities (I saw several in Tampa Bay, where Hooters is headquartered) may have helped, since it made the government look very foolish...

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 21): Hard to believe A&F would have such myopic discriminatory views on a woman missing an arm, her prosthesis looks very good in fact. Don't know how it works in other countries, but here in the US, A&F pretty much has a "whites only" policy.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 16): Since when has selling clothes required beauty? Does Walmart know about this requirement? I can understand the need for attractive models but if a store needs attractive salespeople then airlines should be able to get away with hiring only attractive flight attendants.

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 6): Just about everyone I've spoken to who's worked there or knew people who worked there said that the company puts forth an "image" akin to Hitler's super race ideals. Everyone who works there is above average to good looking.... no minorities need apply though.

Sigh.

I worked for Abercrombie and Fitch for about two years in a couple of locations in Atlanta and Dallas. I also shopped there for about a decade (I'm more J. Crew now). Minorities are fairly well represented at Abercrombie and Fitch, I can't count how many blacks, Asians, and Hispanics I worked with. Good looking (the "unattractive" people worked in back, yes, but all white? Definitely not. One can say though that since A&F is marketed more towards white teenagers and 20-somethings, naturally, more of those would consider employment there.

As for the Walmart argument, have you noticed that the pictures of people wearing clothing at Walmart are models? They don't have pictures of some 400 lb. mess wearing Dickies overalls or some landscaper wearing their $9 jeans. Abercrombie took it one step further and has good looking models and good looking people selling their clothes, making the connection in people's minds that "only beautiful people wear Abercrombie." Don't get me wrong Abercrombie has arrogance written all over them, but it's fairly innocent.

What A&F's marketing strategy is downright brilliant, and has really hurt companies like Gap and Aeropostale in terms of the white 18-34 crowd. Will they be able to keep it up forever, who knows.

Don't misrepresent what the company is, or compare it to Hitler's racial policies, because then you just sound like a fat girl who can't fit into a pair of A&F size 14 pants.