Give me a break! Hooters doesn't hire fat girls, neither do casinos. If a particular company doesn't want a prosthetic arm flaying about in front of their customers, they should be able to ask her to go to the stockroom. Even McDonalds shoves guys to the kitchen and leaves the women upfront as cashiers. Abercrombie and Fitch is well known for their "look" of skinny white teens and college kids running around and having a great time. That sells clothes. Prosthetic arms do not.
Next thing you know they'll get sued because their ads don't have wheelchair kids in them.
@iamjames: So let me get this straight. Just because other companies have discriminatory hiring practices makes this one right too? I'd sue them all. If a person is fully able to do the job that he or she was hired for, he or she should be able to keep that job. Period. Using other examples of clearly-wrong discrimination doesn't make what A&F did right.
And A&F catalogs are full of vapid, blank-staring, limp-posing models that look like drug-addled junkies or coma patients. Especially a lot of the women. I think a dude playing basketball in a wheelchair would be a definite improvement.
@saya: I approved your response, Saya, not iamjames' response. Tertiary fire, I guess.
I agree- she deserves more compensation from a company that prides itself on its racist, discriminatory policies. Riam Dean is perfectly capable to work on the front lines in a clothing store- not that it's something I'd wish upon her, but if is what she chooses to do, she should be able to do it.
@iamjames: I agree. They might be a sucky company, but there is reason that front-end Abercrombie employees are categorized as "models"- and its exactly so law suits like this can be avoided.
@TheJacqueline ValJean: Actually, only the two people who stand at the front of the store and literally do nothing else are considered models, and they're not there all the time. All of the other employees are "brand representatives," and since there aren't models there every day (usually only on weekends, holidays and/or big shopping days like Black Friday) sometimes "brand representatives" stand at the front of the store for an entire shift and greet and recruit people, based on their appearance of course. Still, that classification does not protect the company from discrimination suits. They're actually lucky they got away with it in this case. Usually they don't.
Oh, for the love of fuck. Are you serious? So she was harassed, but not discriminated against? I may be over sensitive, but being sent to work in the stockroom because she didn't look right goes a bit beyond harassment.
T-Pain got so much flak for that chain, but I think it is the best one I've ever seen. It's an amazing parody that also EMBRACES what it torments. Love it.
Heres my question.. and I'm not trying to start any arguments, but I work with the A&F chain
Working in the back gives the same pay as working in the front.
Modeling agencies don't get sued for turning down people with handicaps... If the goal is to have floor models wearing the clothes that the store is promoting for the season, I don't see how its THAT outrageous. It's the business world. the goal is to be marketable.
And although I understand her disappointment COMPLETELY (dont get me wrong on that)... It's a bit sad that being asked to work in the back of A&F made her feel "completely worthless..." that's just a wee bit too addicted to the ego trip of working in the front...
meh, as mean as it is, it's not your company - so you can't write the rules. if they don't want someone with a prosthetic arm working the floor, then as far as i'm concerned, they could fire her. Just like you don't see Asians working the tables at places like El Tapitio. it's not your business, literally, so stay out of it.
I had a friend who worked at A & F once, so this is how I know the following: the reason they are allowed to discriminate based on looks is because SOME of their floor people are "models" and thus can be hired for appearance only. Looking good is a qualification of this job. Even if these models are having a day where they do not look good for whatever reason, they will be sent to the backroom or told to go home.
Any other regular retail salesperson can be hired on credentials and discrimination by looks is not allowed.
However, it seems that A&F are not upfront with prospective employees in telling them the difference between modeling jobs and salespeople jobs, which is where the confusion, problems and hurt feelings arise and allegations of discrimination set in.
If they are hiring models, they are hiring models. If they only want models of a certain look, that is their prerogative - we wouldn't tell Seventeen magazine they have a discriminatory policy if they refused to hire a cover model older than 30 - because that is not their target demographic. A&F knows who they are marketing to and choose models who fit that look.
Saying that, I don't agree with the way they've done business, nor would I buy from them, but I do think they have a right to hire people to model their clothes they way they wish. Its the same as when they decide which models to hire for their catalogue.
@StarSquid is in love with a robot: Also I should qualify that the models are just hired to stand there and look good, greeting customers. Other employees are supposed to do the "salespeople work". Whether they stick with this or not, I am not sure.
08/13/09
Next thing you know they'll get sued because their ads don't have wheelchair kids in them.
08/13/09
And A&F catalogs are full of vapid, blank-staring, limp-posing models that look like drug-addled junkies or coma patients. Especially a lot of the women. I think a dude playing basketball in a wheelchair would be a definite improvement.
08/13/09
I agree- she deserves more compensation from a company that prides itself on its racist, discriminatory policies. Riam Dean is perfectly capable to work on the front lines in a clothing store- not that it's something I'd wish upon her, but if is what she chooses to do, she should be able to do it.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
Yes, but Electric Youths are still handing over wads of cash for 80s bling.
06/29/09
Working in the back gives the same pay as working in the front.
Modeling agencies don't get sued for turning down people with handicaps... If the goal is to have floor models wearing the clothes that the store is promoting for the season, I don't see how its THAT outrageous. It's the business world. the goal is to be marketable.
And although I understand her disappointment COMPLETELY (dont get me wrong on that)... It's a bit sad that being asked to work in the back of A&F made her feel "completely worthless..." that's just a wee bit too addicted to the ego trip of working in the front...
09/09/09
Using your logic, someone in a wheelchair couldn't work on the floor because they wouldn't be able to stand and show off the pants? Seriously?
06/22/09
09/09/09
06/13/09
Wait, so all A&F employees wear jeans and t-shirts?
06/13/09
Any other regular retail salesperson can be hired on credentials and discrimination by looks is not allowed.
However, it seems that A&F are not upfront with prospective employees in telling them the difference between modeling jobs and salespeople jobs, which is where the confusion, problems and hurt feelings arise and allegations of discrimination set in.
If they are hiring models, they are hiring models. If they only want models of a certain look, that is their prerogative - we wouldn't tell Seventeen magazine they have a discriminatory policy if they refused to hire a cover model older than 30 - because that is not their target demographic. A&F knows who they are marketing to and choose models who fit that look.
Saying that, I don't agree with the way they've done business, nor would I buy from them, but I do think they have a right to hire people to model their clothes they way they wish. Its the same as when they decide which models to hire for their catalogue.
06/13/09
06/13/09
06/13/09
Stop right there. Fuck that job.