You know, I've already been missing NYC, and then I read this:
"Club Monaco locations in New York City will be serving champagne until 11 p.m., and the SoHo store will have a cupcake truck outside until September 12th."
Well at least the stands Abercrombie takes against disabled people are totally worthwhile and meaningful. Just think: if they had allowed those sisters to do whatever they wanted everything about the store would have suffered! All their customers would have totally cared and thought they were like lesbians or something! Oh gawd, it's bad enough they're disabled, now their lesbians too?!
But seriously, what exactly was the point of doing that, Abercrombie? If I was a higher up in the chain I would be pissed that such moronic ignorance is costing the company so much freaking money.
@Penny: That's so stupid! So so so stupid. Not only do they have to pay a hefty fine (well, to me, if I was a multi-billion (?) dollar company it probably wouldn't seem as big), the entire company is coming out of that lawsuit looking like intolerant, ignorant asshats!
"Meanwhile, co-star Kristin Davis' line with Belk department stores has been discontinued, and the actress' planned New York Fashion Week show canceled. Belk and Davis say the decision was mutual."
BUT IS SHE BY SHEREE STILL ON?!
Good. I wish more actresses would discontinue their lines (or get fired, either is fine).
Having had to recently deal with some upper-management types at Abercrombie, I can only say that everyone there is just really, really dumb. I don't think that they are intentionally nefarious, I think that the company policy just completely prohibits anyone from making any decision on their own in favor of common sense.
@TheUptightMidwesterner: Agreed. My company allows no autonomy at the store level, which means that one store freaking out because they have sold out of one item and they don't know what to replace it with snowballs into my having to draft a memo because our CEO assumes every store has the same problem. They are totally helpless, and it's fucking annoying, but it's really the executive management's fault, not theirs. This is the case with most specialty/mall retailers, so I try to cut them some slack. Like you said, not evil at the store level, just stupid and frozen by rules.
@TheUptightMidwesterner: Except they end up violating the law when they do this. State and federal laws require accommodations be made for people with disabilities. After already undergoing a lawsuit for alleged disability discrimination, it is unlikely their hasn't been some research into disability law in upper management. If they are not adapting policy and educating staff about the ADA and state disability laws, then it is because they decided to take chances.
@Lymed: I agree, but they are also trained to look for physical handicaps, and therefore could not or would not consider Molly's autism to be an actual disability. I also firmly believe that is one employee had half a brain and let them go into the room anyway- they would have been fired and we would be reading about Jane Doe, who was fired from AF for letting an autistic customer go into the room with her sister as caretaker..
The company is just so robotic- everyone ends up being fucked in the end.
Man, I wish those headphones Lady Gaga did weren't ear buds. People sometimes have a hard time believing this (?) but those little things do not stay in my ears.
@Eleanor Ramilly: I've noticed that the new Apple buds are WAY better than the older ones, which didn't really stay in my ears either. Which is weird, because I have small ears.
@Penny: I have small ears, too. I think that's why they fall out? I can't ever get them in there correctly. I currently have ones that are intended for running, wrap around the earlobe and still don't stay in.
@Eleanor Ramilly: I'm right there with you. I couldn't keep ear buds in, if my life depended on it. I think we need to start a small-eared support group.
@BabyJane: there are these attachments you can buy that come in different sizes - they hook onto the outside of your earbuds and are soft and silicone-y. Changed my life, yo...
@Eleanor Ramilly: Sennheiser has some sports versions that actually work really well (I have also had trouble with this in the past). Randomly found them at a Target one time, but they're these: [www.sennheiserusa.com]
@telecomic the thoughtful red panda: It's in there, though sometimes with certain browsers, the top stories in list articles can be hard to see. (The item shows up with the link on the home page.)
To be fair to Abercrombie, more than one person going in to a fitting room is a BIG factor in shopping, and is why it's increasingly becoming the policy at most stores to not let people share fitting rooms. Autism is a disability that does not usually have any physical indicators. And the person who refused to let the girl in was probably a minimum wage employee who was scared of violating the rules. So in THIS case, I don't really think it's fair to say that Abercrombie doesn't like disabled people.
@laureltreedaphne: The page formatting is not allowing me to read the story, but you bring up a valid point. A&F, like every retailer, is probably worried about shrinkage, although they should be worrying about their employees more than their customers.
Ya but if you worked there, would you have given those girls a hard time? Knowing that not all disabilities are visible? I can understand the rule, but when they explained the situation they should have been let in. At least the manager should have been able to figure that one out. I think this also speaks to the kind of training they give employees. I think this coupled with other incidents show that Abercrombie has a pretty crappy record with being sensitive to people with disabilities.
@laureltreedaphne: I hear ya - but the fact that when pressed the company's lawyers tried mutiple times to claim she wasn't disabled took it to another level.
@MegiEr: It's not defensible, and A&F are assholes. But, working in retail for a large company like that is crap, so I can see how it may have happened.
@laureltreedaphne: If you read the article, the mother and sister both explained multiple times that she had a disability. I don't think this was solely a decision made by one worker without manager involvement.
@laureltreedaphne: A greater proportion of shrinkage is due to workers than customers, because workers have unfettered access. And while I'm not expecting A&F to hire rocket scientists, a little common sense and common courtesy would have been useful in this situation. They don't like disabilities, because that's not in keeping with their "beautiful people" business model.
@NefariousNewt a.k.a. General Awesomesauce: And, if they are going to have rules about multiple people in a dressing room, they should also have a rule about no strollers. Jussayin'.....
@SweetIo: Exactly. It shows A&F was only interested in maintaining their precious "rules," and were unwilling to admit they were wrong. In every case, they've gotten away with blatant descrimination, but with no admission of guilt.
@Lymed: And it's no excuse anyway. I've worked with the autistic -- I know. Autism is not necessarily visual, but then again, they should not have to carry a card or wear a sign saying they are autistic. If shrinkage was such an issue, then have a sales associate stand by outside and count the items, or hand them in and out -- that wouldn't have been too difficult, would it?
I know. People need to use common sense. But as someone who has been a retail peon, they drill into your head NO EXCEPTIONS. And if you don't want to lose your job, you listen. Clearly, these girls were not out with their mother trying to shoplift, but I can see where some 16 year old would be scared to violate the rules, would be worried they were running a scam, etc. You know?
Yes, that's true. But in terms of reducing shoplifting from customers, restricting dressing room access is one of the best ways to do it. When I worked at H&M, they told us that ONE person was to be allowed in each dressing room, NO EXCEPTIONS. Ever. I like to think that if this had happened, I would have had the common sense to look at the situation and realize that the rules needed to bended. But I can see where the confusion would happen.
Abercrombie doesn't like disabilities, I agree with you there. I am just saying that I don't feel that this case is an example of that.
@laureltreedaphne: No, it's completely fair when they demand the family turn over their daughter's school records, medical records and subject her to an intensive interview just to try to prove she's not really autistic. Sorry, that isn't just a mistake or store policy, that's just being an asshole. If they had an ounce of a brain, they'd have figured the public relations fallout from being perceived as hostile to people with autism far outweighs just saying sorry.
@laureltreedaphne: But corporate should not teach no exceptions when the law clearly requires exceptions be made for people with disabilities. And the manager should know when to make an exception. This was not just one sales associate. If you read the article, it is clear that multiple staff had to know what was going on, because one of the claims is that the girl was ashamed over the fact that her mother had to explain her condition in front of other customers.
@Penny: I got that, but I still think A&F still doesn't like people with disabilities. If they did, they (and other stores that have similar one-person-only policies) would realize that such rules should be guidelines with room for a manager's discretion in case accommodation must be made. Couldn't they just have counted the number of items of clothing going in and the number going out? What happens when someone needs to bring in a service dog? Does the rule apply then? Wouldn't one of their dressing rooms be handicapped-accessible and could accommodate two people? Why not let people who need another person's help trying on clothes use that room?
I guess my bigger beef is with the idiocy of stores and their corporations that do not accommodate the vast differences in abilities of people (read: their customers) and insist on rules for the sake of rules when intelligent people would view them as guidelines that might need tweaking. Not to mention the larger issue of bad PR. Even if stores don't give a goddamn about people with disabilities, surely their marketing departments ought to know how much bad press they would bring down upon themselves by coming across as assholes instead of nice people.
@LaFemme: "Odds" are she'll have a hard time showing up unless a lot of freebies are thrown her way.
This guy fired Karl Lagerfeld from Chloe in favor of Stella McCartney, who was then, just out of design school. Now I love Stella McCartney and have issues with Lagerfeld's verbal diarrhea but since then, Chloe has been through 3 designers and is on their 4th. And Lagerfeld has been working wonders at Chanel, which is doing pretty well in the recession. Just a thought, but this guy doesn't seem like he should be the CEO of anything let alone a major fashion brand.
@Penny: When pressed to be more specifc about the the potential for Lohan's presence to promote the brand and increase shareholder value, Moufarrige added, "I mean, if you throw enough shit on the wall, some of it's got to stick, am I right?"
I really do not understand the concept of "coffee table books". How often do you really have someone sitting on your couch with nothing to entertain them? And isn't that what tv is for? And how do you fit the book on the table around the half full mugs and discarded notebooks and post-its and the books you're actually reading and don't have a shelf for?
....or is that just me?
@colormeroutine: You also use them to prove how smart and well read you are. I personally like to leave graphic novels and Harlequin Romances there. I find it really brings the room together.
@colormeroutine: Oh. I've been plonking my mugs of tea straight down on top of the books on handmade Turkish kilims and the great trout fishing lodges of North America. Also, I notice now that there is a forgotten bowl of two-week-old grapes sitting on top of an interesting volume of photographs of Angkor Wat, and a handful of manky tissues lodged behind the dust cover. I am living in filthy squalor. I do not deserve nice things. I do not deserve naked Heidi.
I conclude that coffee table books bring nothing but shame and sadness.
@Harlot Brontë: Obviously, you have never seen the coffee table book about coffee tables. With legs that can fold out so it can act as a... coffee table!
"and revealing one underaged nip"
Did they prove she is "underaged"? Appearing to be under 16 and BEING under 16 are two very different things.
As "sleazy" as AA is, at least they don't use sweatshop labor? They certainly aren't the only store to use sexually provocative ads, and they have much better practices than most places.
@greengrey: 'Better practices than most places' doesn't quite excuse sexually harassing employees (or reporters, for that matter). Pretty rampant. Sure it's a bit of an ethical conundrum, but is it too much to dream of a company that doesn't use slave labor AND doesn't make them pay for their green cards with blow jobs?
@HeatherNumber1: Yeah, it'd be great if there were companies that were totally ethical, but I just don't understand the anger directed at AA when other stores are arguably worse.
I'd rather shop at AA than urban outfitters. I don't know why people consider AA worse than UO.
But the only articles on Jez about UO or anthropologie are pictures from their catalog, and we ignore the awful shit their chairman pulls. Why is AA constantly attacked, but stores with worse practices are left alone?
@greengrey: I think part of it is because American Apparel's whole platform when it started was "buy from us! we're ethical! we don't use sweatshops!" so they kind of opened it up for attack
And part of it is because they sell hideous gold lame leggings. for $80 a pair
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: Where do you shop if you don't mind me asking? I'm open to finding places that are somewhat environmentally friendly, don't use sweatshop labor, and don't have iffy ads.
@colormeroutine: The shiny leggings are $42. Why yes, I do have a pair, haha.
@greengrey: even if the model is of age, but appears underage, i would sort of have a problem with that imagery put out there into the universe. also, the context of the nudity is the thing--AA's use of nudity is just raunchy, not natural or egalitarian...
@greengrey: Arguably worse, but not necessarily worse. I don't know if I can say sweatshop labor is worse than the level of sexual harassment that seems to exist at AA. I don't think they are comparable, but I think it is horrendous that a company would market itself as treating employees well based on their salaries when they are exploited sexually. It is not just the ads, it is the ads and the treatment of employees by the head of the company.
@greengrey: I actually don't really shop a lot, partially because I feel guilty whenever I buy things and partially because I am poor. I am in the process of teaching myself how to sew my own clothes because I am just THAT frontier chic.
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: Please tell me you are working on bonnets and pantaloons and lace-trimmed aprons. It would make my day. Frontier Zombie! It's like The Little Zombie House on the Prairie, and there is nothing more awesome than that.
@Harlot Brontë: Actually, I am sort of considering making myself some sunbonnets because I live in Texas...Also, somebody really freakin' needs to write Little Zombie House on the Prairie in the same style as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: "Pa carefully loaded his musket with black powder and bullets he had made himself in a lead mold, took aim, and shot the lurching zombie square between the eyes. It dropped with a *splorch*."
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
"Club Monaco locations in New York City will be serving champagne until 11 p.m., and the SoHo store will have a cupcake truck outside until September 12th."
*sigh*
09/09/09
But seriously, what exactly was the point of doing that, Abercrombie? If I was a higher up in the chain I would be pissed that such moronic ignorance is costing the company so much freaking money.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
BUT IS SHE BY SHEREE STILL ON?!
Good. I wish more actresses would discontinue their lines (or get fired, either is fine).
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
The company is just so robotic- everyone ends up being fucked in the end.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
[www.startribune.com]
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
Ya but if you worked there, would you have given those girls a hard time? Knowing that not all disabilities are visible? I can understand the rule, but when they explained the situation they should have been let in. At least the manager should have been able to figure that one out. I think this also speaks to the kind of training they give employees. I think this coupled with other incidents show that Abercrombie has a pretty crappy record with being sensitive to people with disabilities.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
I know. People need to use common sense. But as someone who has been a retail peon, they drill into your head NO EXCEPTIONS. And if you don't want to lose your job, you listen. Clearly, these girls were not out with their mother trying to shoplift, but I can see where some 16 year old would be scared to violate the rules, would be worried they were running a scam, etc. You know?
09/09/09
Yes, that's true. But in terms of reducing shoplifting from customers, restricting dressing room access is one of the best ways to do it. When I worked at H&M, they told us that ONE person was to be allowed in each dressing room, NO EXCEPTIONS. Ever. I like to think that if this had happened, I would have had the common sense to look at the situation and realize that the rules needed to bended. But I can see where the confusion would happen.
Abercrombie doesn't like disabilities, I agree with you there. I am just saying that I don't feel that this case is an example of that.
09/09/09
Yikes. Didn't know that happened, and that seems beyond ridiculous.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
I guess my bigger beef is with the idiocy of stores and their corporations that do not accommodate the vast differences in abilities of people (read: their customers) and insist on rules for the sake of rules when intelligent people would view them as guidelines that might need tweaking. Not to mention the larger issue of bad PR. Even if stores don't give a goddamn about people with disabilities, surely their marketing departments ought to know how much bad press they would bring down upon themselves by coming across as assholes instead of nice people.
09/09/09
09/09/09
These are not very affirming words from a CEO.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
This guy fired Karl Lagerfeld from Chloe in favor of Stella McCartney, who was then, just out of design school. Now I love Stella McCartney and have issues with Lagerfeld's verbal diarrhea but since then, Chloe has been through 3 designers and is on their 4th. And Lagerfeld has been working wonders at Chanel, which is doing pretty well in the recession. Just a thought, but this guy doesn't seem like he should be the CEO of anything let alone a major fashion brand.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
....or is that just me?
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
I conclude that coffee table books bring nothing but shame and sadness.
09/02/09
09/02/09
Did they prove she is "underaged"? Appearing to be under 16 and BEING under 16 are two very different things.
As "sleazy" as AA is, at least they don't use sweatshop labor? They certainly aren't the only store to use sexually provocative ads, and they have much better practices than most places.
09/02/09
09/02/09
I'd rather shop at AA than urban outfitters. I don't know why people consider AA worse than UO.
But the only articles on Jez about UO or anthropologie are pictures from their catalog, and we ignore the awful shit their chairman pulls. Why is AA constantly attacked, but stores with worse practices are left alone?
09/02/09
09/02/09
And part of it is because they sell hideous gold lame leggings. for $80 a pair
09/02/09
@colormeroutine: The shiny leggings are $42. Why yes, I do have a pair, haha.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Their jeans are around $80.
09/02/09