Forever 21 won’t let more than one person into a dressing room, a policy that extends to Aldys and her eight-year-old son. We remember being young, climbing things and looking to run away with strangers, so we were surprised that Forever 21 ordered Aldys to leave her child unattended while she tried on clothes. When she refused and brought her son into the dressing room, a manager called security and told Aldys she had thirty seconds to scram. She calls it as “the most embarrassing and humiliating moment of my life.”
She sent the following letter to CEO Don Chang and CFO Larry Meyer:
To Whom It May Concern:I am a frequent customer at Forever 21 and have done a lot of shopping at your stores with my eight-year-old son who almost always accompanies me here and at other retail outlets. I have always enjoyed shopping at Forever 21 because of your huge selection of styles, colors and variety of clothing that fits any occasion and the reasonable prices.
I say all this because on February 13, 2008 at about 7:45 pm I experienced the most embarrassing and humiliating moment of my life in one of your stores located at the Providence Place Mall in Providence Rhode Island. I would have never thought that what happened to me yesterday was possible.
I was shopping in your store and needed to try on clothing I had selected. As usual my eight-year-old son accompanied me. I went to the fitting room area with my son and handed the attendant my clothing to be counted. She escorted my son and I to a fitting room. As I was about to enter the room she informed me that my son would have to wait outside the fitting room area. I was in complete shock and refused to leave my son unattended in the main area of your store or anywhere else in the store. I told her that I would not leave him unsupervised and brought him in the dressing room with me.
After trying on two pair of pants there was a loud bang on my door and a manager told me that only one person was allowed in the fitting room and one of us had to exit immediately. At this point I became extremely upset, as any person would, never have I been told to leave my son unattended in order to try on clothing. I shop in many different places and was never told that my son could not accompany me in the fitting room. I told the manager that I would not let my son leave the room unless it was with me and I had to get dressed before exiting the fitting room. At this point they called security and stated that I had thirty seconds to exit the room.
I was utterly humiliated and embarrassed as well as very upset. I left the fitting room without tying my shoes and my son had to witness this whole ordeal. It was utterly humiliating and embarrassing. I have never been treated in such a horrible manner by anyone in my life. My son was afraid and felt like he did something wrong. I refused to be escorted out of the store by security and the verbal assault by your employees attracted the attention of all the customers and other store employees.
I only have the names of the two managers who were accosting me: Felix and Tracy. I don’t know the name of the attendant. Had I followed the irresponsible and unprofessional demands of the attendant and managers and left my son alone, something terrible could have happened to him and you would have caused my family irreparable and devastating harm and/or loss. Something any company should prevent and avoid causing, even the suggestion of such. My son is only EIGHT years old and would never need to be left alone with a stranger or in any public place.
Sincerely,
Aldys
Responsible parenting or a reasonable anti-shoplifting measure? Tell us in the comments.
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
Forever 21′s Vicious Rivets Attacked My Car’s Seats
-
Move Over Santa: Consumer Reports Issues List Of Naughty & Nice Companies
-
Dollar Shave Club Replaces Lost Handle, No Questions Asked, Wins Customer Over
-
Perhaps USPS Wouldn't Be In Such Trouble If It Didn't Have 682 Million Unsold Simpsons Stamps Sitting Around
-
Toys 'R' Us Releasing Tablet For Kids So Yours Won't Get As Smudgy During Epic Angry Birds Sessions
@CharlieSeattle:
Ah yes, anyone who stands up for a corporation automatically works for them, or has some vested interest in their success. No. I do not work for a retailer at all. I simply possess common sense.
@Pylon83: Wanting to keep a good eye on your kid or being protective of your child means they’re raising a “little monster they can’t control?” News to me.
this is ridiculous. their one person only rule is so i dont bone my girlfriend in dressing rooms. to ask someone to leave with their 8 YO son is absurd. forever 21 can suck it.
there are plenty of great stores that will let you bring someone in the room with you. go to those places, even though forever 21 offers the Made in Anywhere but America prices.
@crap:
My comment was directly primarily at those who raised the issue of children causing problems in the store. Further, if you can’t stand to have your child out of sight for even one second, taking them shopping with you where it is at least foreseeable that they cannot accompany you into a dressing room is irresponsible. I understand the need to protect offspring, but there is a line. If you haven’t raised your child to be responsible enough to be left alone for a matter of minutes in a public place, perhaps your parenting theory needs to be adjusted.
@CharlieSeattle: So you say there is a law, then can’t back it up. Rule one of debates, the person providing the “fact” is the one that needs to bring the proof.
@cde:
Bah. Charlie doesn’t need to cite any laws. He/She simply needs to “know” that one exists. And even if there isn’t a law, CPS will make one up. God forbid anyone be expected to do any research before making sweeping assertions of law.
@cde: really? “random strangers don’t deserve any” respect? so you just go around pushing people out of the way, telling random strangers to fuck off? Every time you say “excuse me”, let some one go first or give someone the benefit of the doubt you ARE showing them respect and treating them like a human being. Why are you so suck on “the law”? Let’s put it this way. A customer in a store should be treated with respect by the employees of that store. This store failed. If this “policy” really matters so much, the store police should have waited until she was done and came out of the changing room. He/she should have said “I’m sorry, we can’t let you have your little boy in the room with you. Are you done shopping? let me help you carry those to checkout.” If she asked what the policy is for, he/she should have explained, if there is an explanation). If policy is in place for no reason that can be explaned, it shouldn’t be in place at all, that’s when they owe her an apology. Again, if they thought she was shoplifting they should call the police.
@iskandertime:
The store does not have to explain why a policy is in place to a customer. For all practical purposes, it’s entirely irrelevant WHY the policy is in place, only that it is indeed in place. The customer is a guest of the store proprietor, and must abide by any and all polices of the store or leave. If I worked at the store, I certainly would not try and explain a policy to a customer. Simply stating “This is the policy, you must abide by it” should be sufficient. A private store is not a democracy. The customers don’t get to vote (directly) on whether they like a policy. If you don’t like it, shop somewhere else. Vote (indirectly) with your dollars.
@Pylon83: It is not only a matter of trusting your child to be responsible, there are strangers around who you have no control over. I don’t know of many 8 year olds, no matter how responsible who stand a chance if a large adult attempts to kidnap them.
@iskandertime: Pushing them? No, cause that’s assault, and just because you don’t have any respect for a person is no reason to act uncivil. Now, telling them to fuck off, why yes, yes I do. Now fuck off ^__^
@bobosgirl: Well, you are clearly not standard as far as “modesty” goes. Most women don’t think there’s anything immodest about a bikini. So since you’re not standard, I don’t think you have any basis to judge anyone else for doing differently, especially when what she is doing likely IS standard.
@K-Bo:
I disagree. You can’t keep an eye on your child 24/7/365. If you can’t trust them to scream/kick/etc. if someone tries to abduct them in a public, busy retail store they shouldn’t be out in public. It’s irrational to think that there is ALWAYS someone out to abduct your child, and that they will forcibly do it in broad daylight, in a public store with cameras no less. The only reasonable fear is that your child will wander off with them because they offer candy, etc. That is something you can teach your child not to do, and if you can’t trust them not to do that, leave them at home.
@Pylon83: It’s NOT foreseeable, as far as I’m concerned, that F21 wouldn’t let the kid in. I’ve been shopping with my mom dozens if not hundreds of times, both her shopping and me shopping, at various ages, and we’ve never been told that one of us is not allowed in the fitting area. And when I was little, she was never, ever, ever told that I wasn’t allowed into the fitting room with her, even at stores that currently have a 1 person only policy. So as far as I’m concerned, this policy, and its apparently inflexible enforcement, is not at all foreseeable.
@bohemian: Gee, maybe she is a single mother who can’t afford a babysitter every time she needs to go shopping? What a ridiculous comment!
If you folks were traumatized by seeing your mother’s bare legs (she was trying on pants, for crying out loud) you’ve got some serious body issues.
@Pylon83: And furthermore, you say that children should be trusted not to run or wander off, and that parents can’t watch them 24/7. Other people are down on “breeders” letting their kids run wild.
Can the parent really win here? Come on.
@Dashrashi:
I think they can. It’s all a matter of teaching your kids to be well-behaved. We’ve been in numerous situations where we have seen kids who are well behaved, presumably because of proper parenting, and kids who are terrors, presumably because of improper parenting. Those who choose to have children have an implicit duty to make sure they are well behaved in public. Frankly, some parents don’t give a shit how their kids act because they are too lazy to do anything about it. THOSE are the people who should not bring their children into society. What I’m saying is your kid should be responsible enough and “Trained” well enough to not run off or make trouble. Those are the people who can trust them to wait alone while mommy tries on clothes. The ones who can’t trust their kids to not be terrors should leave them at home, or ship them off to Abu Dhabi with that wretched cat Nermal.
@Pylon83: You’ve got a lot of presumptions there. I know kids that are well-behaved naturally, with inattentive and basically brain-dead parents, and kids whose parents are awesome but who are terrors nonetheless. I even know well-behaved and poorly-behaved kids with, gasp, the same parents.
I can only wish on you willful children. The relationship between parenting and child behavior is not as direct as you think it is.
Let’s back up — the store rule is “one person per dressing room.” Pure and simple. We have no idea why the rule was established, but it was and it was communicated. The little guy heard the rule and witnessed his Mom breaking that rule. If you need to bring your child to the dressing room, shop where that is allowed. ’nuff said. Maybe the complaint letter could have suggested the establishment of a “family dressing room.”
@mscissy: She clearly didn’t know when she went in there that they had this policy, or that it would be enforced without reasonable exceptions. Put yourself in her position. Wouldn’t you be confused and incredulous if someone told you your young child had to be out of your supervision?
@Dashrashi:
She had no reasonable expectation that an exception would be made. That’s simply irrational. “I know you have this policy, but I have a child. I deserve an exception”. That’s precisely what you are implying. And no one told her she had to leave the child unsupervised, they simply said the kid can’t go in with you. You’re making quite a leap to fill that gap. They told her what the policy was BEFORE she broke it. She knowingly and willfully broke the policy, and deserved what she got. The only “reasonable exception” you can expect is one that is demanded by law, such as the ADA. There is no “reasonable expectation” of an exception simply because your decided to procreate.
@MommaJ: I agree.
Frankly, I’m surprise that there is even an overlap between the F21 customer and the responsible parent demographic.
People – the “strangers will STEAL my children” urban legend is just that. Well over half of the missing children cases involve kids running over to a friends’ house in a fit of pique. Of the rest, around 90% involve family members, mainly custody battles. Most of the remaining involve people known to the family already.
So the safest thing to do if you’re worried about child abductions is to get them as far away from their families as possible.
Oh. Wait.
Seriously, people: perspective. Facts. Common sense. Your kids will be happier and much more well-adjusted. As will you.
Oh, and read more papers, watch less local news. Since many of the readers here are clearly unable to separate sensationalism from news. It’ll just make you even more misinformed than you already are.
(rant off)
@Pylon83: I really don’t think I am making leaps. Exceptions are made to policies all the time–otherwise, why would anyone ever bother to add “No Exceptions”? You see exceptions made constantly in criminal law–the one area where, arguably, policy should most be upheld strictly. You also see them, very, very often, in contract law. This is not about a kid specifically–it’s about what’s reasonable. That’s generally the standard in these areas of law, too.
I also think that by saying “The kid can’t go in with you,” they WERE implying that the kid should be left outside, because it would be irrational for them to be implying that she should leave, because that would cost them money. You can’t blind yourself to the implications by saying, “Well, I never expressly told her to leave her kid unattended.” You’re expected to behave like a reasonable person, and it’s reasonably foreseeable that the outcome of you telling a person that she can’t bring her kid in is that she will leave him outside. (That appears to be the solution meant by the clerk, again, as the other option–leaving–is irrational from the store’s POV.) If that’s so, you’re responsible for whatever arises from that (again, reasonably foreseeable) outcome. I cannot imagine that F21 wants to be responsible for kids left unattended.
I heart PYLON83. That is all.
@radleyas: Well, Forever 21 is the Christian Cult clothing store. So if there were any clothing that would be afraid of exposing 8 year olds to partial nudity, it would be them.
They told her the policy and she didn’t follow it. In fact, she flagrantly ignored it. If her child is too disobedient to sit calmly on a bench outside the dressing room while she tries on clothing she could bring a second person shopping with her (to watch him while she uses the dressing room) or she could buy the clothing, try it on at home, and return it if it doesn’t fit. The store has every right to have such a policy, and every right to kick her out if she can’t follow it.
By the way, does this mean she also brings her 8 year old into the women’s restroom? I for one hate when I have to use the restroom only to have little boys trying to peek at me under the stall. Gross and annoying.
@samurailynn: You should read the comments before posting. Everything you said has been covered before.
@Dashrashi:
I agree that there are exceptions to everything. However, EXPECTING such an exception is irrational. You can’t proceed through life with a sense of entitlement that you believe that you are entitled to an exception for everything. This is especially true when it deals with a private business.
Y WRAITHSAMA AT 02/16/08 06:57 PM
Her son is almost middle school-aged and she’s bringing him into the changing room with her? And she does this regularly? That’s morbid.
Parenting aside, if a mother feels the need to bring her child into the fitting room to ensure their safety, I agree that it’s pretty crappy for the store to deny her
5 years olds are in kindergarten….8year olds 3rd grade. i was 12 when i was middle school douche.
i agree with whoever said our worlds just fucked up and cautious now, my mom let me roam the stores when i was like 5. i got lost at Disneyland no less than 5x before 6 and once completely lost at Knott’s Berry Farms when i was 4, i just walked away and disappeared. my point is, my parents found me. That was 92′…i dont think thaaat much has changed. People are just scared
I also thought that the child in question was much younger than eight years old. I don’t see why an eight year old would need to go inside the dressing room with the mother unless he was possibly disabled in some way. But I suppose it’s the principle of the thing. If it was a three year old, then there would be outrage. Also for those holier-than-thou people who question why a mother would bring her child shopping, maybe you need to think of people who may have less than you. many families right now are squeezed to pay their mortgage, rising energy costs, esp. gas, food, etc. Childcare, esp. quality childcare is expensive. And if this child in question IS disabled, it’s even more expensive. But I remember being eight and my mother had to go to the dressing room or something. This was just 10 years ago. I was allowed to walk around the store myself(depending on the store) or to just sit in a chair until my mother came. I remember that I wouldn’t want to wait for my mom. I would want to go to the book section or something meanwhile and have my mom meet me there or vice versa, even though she sometimes didn’t think it was a good idea. And my mother was VERY protective. But at eight years old, my mother would not have required me to go inside the dressing room. I would probably stand outside the door so she could see my feet or go outside and stand near the dressing room attendant.
Too many comments to read, but should the mother of an eight year old even be shopping at Forever 21? All they sell are slutty clothes that aren’t made well enough to stand up to one wash.
Look, it’s simple: if you don’t follow the rules, you get in trouble. If an employee says it’s policy to only allow one person in a changing room at at time, then don’t think you can expect them to just turn the other cheek when you pull a “whatever, I’ll do what I want” attitude. And don’t bitch about it afterwards. You were told the rules, and you purposefully broke them. So deal with it.
You people are making it sound like she was forced to leave her child unattended at gunpoint. Was it really so important that she try on those damn pants?
Yeah Forever 21 is ridiculous. Considering children are kidnapped often and when they are unattended, I don’t think it was right of Forever 21 to deny this mom the ability to make sure her son was not getting into trouble and is safe. Unless Forever 21 wants to come up with a babysitting service, they shouldn’t stop moms from keeping their children in the room with them.
Why shop at Forever 21 anyway? The one time I went in their store, I found so many flaws in their clothes. Clothes fell apart so quickly and were falling apart on the hangers. They were irregular, also, even though they were charging full price. I would rather spend my money on something a little more likely to stand a couple washings.
@Pylon83: Expecting a reasonable exception to be made, when reasonable exceptions are generally made, is not irrational. Nor is it entitled. It is merely conforming one’s expectations to reality.
I agree that you’re not always entitled to an exception, but it’s reasonable to expect one when A) the exception is reasonable, and B) reasonable exceptions are made, by and large. I don’t see how this is an entitlement attitude.
You obviously aren’t a parent- I’m not uncomfortable with nudity at all– sex is how I got to be a parent- and having a sense of modesty is not the same as knowing what sex is@brazenlyblond:
Personally, I’m tired of people writing about some ‘emotional experience’ in the same manner as describing real physical harm. Lady, your emotions aren’t real to anyone but you — they exist only in the subjective experience between your ears. In the final analysis, you are only person who can control and thus be responsible for your emotional reactions, not anyone else. Did something someone said make you ‘feel’ something, well, maybe you ought to practice some discipline like yoga or meditation in order to learn how to get yourself under control! Your propensity to fly off the handle and come unglued is your problem. Get back to me when the store security billy clubs you.
As for Forever 21, I’ve waited outside the changing area while a girlfriend tried on clothes. That store, especially the dressing area, is a total chick space. I don’t blame them at all for wanting to exclude an 8 year old male child from the environment — and if I were that male child, I’d be glad that they did.
@bobosgirl: I honestly just think it’s ridiculous, though, for you to say that you think it’s generally inappropriate for an 8yo boy to see his mom in what amounts to a bikini because you yourself don’t wear bikinis.
And just one more thing: if she’s trying on pants, it’s not even a bikini we’re talking about, since she’s keeping her shirt on–it’s MORE coverage than a one-piece bathing suit.
@gingerCE: Thank you! If people wouldn’t use their children to steal, stores wouldn’t have to create these strict policies.
@Dodger88: If the people in charge of the property are okay with patrons exposing themselves, then that’s their prerogative. If you don’t like it, you’re free to shop elsewhere.
@CharlieSeattle: State law may or may not say the parent cannot leave the child unattended. Either way, the parent still had the choice to leave the store.
@Tankueray: Ah, one of them “see subject line, comment without reading anything” types, are we? S’okay, I was going to do the same, only make some crack about whether or not Jeebus approves of changing in front of your kids.
I’ve seen kids shoplift.
I’ve seen kids walk off into the streets unattended.
Maybe you should leave your child at home and plan shopping trips alone.
BTW, kids hate shopping unless it’s specifically targeted/geared towards toys.
An otherwise responsible kid can have an attack of mischievousness every now and then, and when you’re trying on pants you can’t dash out to stop them immediately.
Also, to anyone who says “they should just raise more responsible kids”: that sounds a lot like “why don’t you just quit smoking?” or “why don’t you just cheer up and stop being depressed?”: easy to say, maybe easy for some to do, but not a trivial skill which everyone possesses. Surprise, surprise, other people are different than you— you are a unique snowflake after all.
@cde: You have no right to be treated with respect, and a store has every right to tell you to gtfo (Or in legal terms, trespass you).
It sounds like you’re talking about legal rights, a common conflation around these parts. The point of Consumerist stories like these isn’t to establish grounds for lawsuits or criminal prosecution, it’s to warn people about the antisocial behavior practiced by certain stores or corporations. If you believe that people do not deserve respect, then this post isn’t for you. Most people, however, do believe in the concept of basic human decency, and some may be inspired to avoid Forever 21 in the future, which is the intent.@str1cken:
@seth1066: and FTR, at Forever 21 most sales are final or exchange for store credit only.
I can’t believe how many people seem to blindly state that a private store can set any policy it wants and the customer has no right to challenge it and/or complain about it. A store’s private policy does not supersede public policy. For example, they couldn’t refuse to let someone shop there because of their skin color. That would be illegal. And furthermore, just because a private store posts that something is “policy” does not mean it is always enforceable. For example, just because a parking garage has a large sign that reads that their policy is that they are not responsible for theft or damages on their lot does not mean that their policy trumps state law if state law imposes a legal obligation on the garage. And yet it is still legal for the garage to post this erroneous sign. Legal, but just not enforceable.
Note that I am not saying whether or not there is a case that public policy should treat people with young children as a “protected class” for these kinds of purposes. I’m just suggesting that people not cite “store policy” as some be all-end all that trumps all other factors.
But am I the only one who feels that the bigger issue here is the store’s poorly reasoned and foolishly handled enforcement of their policy rather than the fact that she subsequently was thrown out as result of violating the policy. The outrage should be that they would put a customer in that situation in the first place. How stupid is a policy that tells paying customers that if you have concerns about the safety of your children then we prefer you not shop in our store. This is the kind of story that if it gets picked up by local media can generate a huge backlash. Then the store scrambles to state that while there are legit reasons for the policy, they were not intended to be enforced as they were here. “Of course we would never suggest that mothers with young children were unwelcome in our stores. And nothing is more important to us than our customers having a safe and positive experience shopping in our stores.”
Stores are not dumb. They often do dumb things because of institutional arrogance. But they are not dumb. I’m guessing that they are not going to want to alienate most mothers who shop with young children and mothers who shop for their older children. It costs them too much public good will, as I suspect that most people would be sympathetic to the mother with the young child in this case… other than the “openly hostile to those with children” crowd (You want to tell me that a parent has no business taking a young child into a bar or casino or fancy restaurant at night etc, then fine, but don’t tell me that she can’t go shopping for clothes. That’s ridiculous.)
I bet somewhere out there a PR firm is starting to see dollar signs…
They told her the company rule… she ignored it… they are fully in there rights to have security escort her out. She should have never gone in there in the first place this is her fault. Thats the rule plain and simple. If she disagrees complain rationally, don’t shop there or leave her son with someone she trust. She may be humiliated but its her fault and this is both reasonable parenting and a reasonable anti-shoplifting measurement. I hope the CEO tells her there staff did the right thing.
@Dodger88: “I can’t believe how many people seem to blindly state that a private store can set any policy it wants and the customer has no right to challenge it and/or complain about it”
I don’t think anyone is saying she didn’t have the right to challenge/be upset over company policy – we’re saying she simply did not have the right to blatantly ignore the policy and go head and break it. If you disagree with the store policy, that’s fine. Talk to the manager. Yell at the manager. Call the company’s HQ and yell at them. Organize an internet boycott against them. But you loose as soon as you break the rules.