Sorry, Your Prosthetic Arm Doesn't Fit With Abercrombie & Fitch's "Look Policy"
UPDATE: One-Armed Abercrombie & Fitch Worker Wins Wrongful Dismissal Case
Here's a sad story from our friends in the UK. We weren't aware that Abercrombie & Fitch still existed — but apparently it does and it's run into a little legal trouble. A woman with a prosthetic arm says she was forced to work in the stockroom because her limb violated Abercrombie's "Look Policy." Classy!
The Daily Mail says:
She said: 'I was never asked whether I had a disability at my interview and, to be honest, it never occurred to me to mention it.
'It wouldn't stop me doing my job and I certainly didn't want or expect any special treatment.
'All they seemed interested in was taking my photograph to make sure I had the right image.'
After being told she had got the job she went along to an induction day where she was issued a 45-page handbook listing in minute detail the company's strict Look Policy.
It stipulates that staff must represent a 'natural, classic American style' and instructs them on everything from how to wear their hair (clean and natural) to how long they should wear their nails (a quarter of an inch past the end of the finger).
Everything was going along swimmingly until a member of Abercrombie's "visual team" took issue with the white cardigan the woman was wearing over her uniform. (She prefers to wear long sleeves and had been given permission to wear the cardigan.)
'A worker from what they call the "visual team", people who are employed to go round making sure the shop and its staff look up to scratch, came up to me and demanded I take the cardigan off.
'I told her, yet again, that I had been given special permission to wear it,' she recalled.
'A few minutes later my manager came over to me and said: "I can't have you on the shop floor as you are breaking the Look Policy. Go to the stockroom immediately and I'll get someone to replace you."
'I pride myself on being quite a confident girl but I had never experienced prejudice like that before and it made me feel utterly worthless.
'Afterwards I telephoned the company's head office where a member of staff asked whether I was willing to work in the stockroom until the winter uniform arrived.
'That was the final straw. I just couldn't go back.'
This isn't the first time the company has run into trouble because of the Abercrombie "look." They settled a $40 million lawsuit brought by workers who say they were given night shifts or stockroom positions because of the look policy.
I was banished to the stockroom, says disabled shop girl now suing Abercrombie & Fitch for discrimination [Daily Mail via Jezebel]
Abercrombie & Fitch to pay $40M to settle bias case [USAToday]
Post a comment
Comments:
I see nothing wrong with their policy.
Get in the back, cripple...we can't have people like you in our store!
In this day and age, that sort of thinking is just undefendable, and makes me sick.
i can't even walk by the Abercrombie/Hollister block in the malls here... too loud. but the bigger issue is the stench of cologne/perfume.
in unrelated news, GET OFF MAH LAWN
A&F has laughably ridiculous policies like this for sure...but they ARE in the business of selling an "image," so I understand why they have these types of policies. Doesn't mean that I support it.
Anyone else think of Abercrombie & Fitch as that douchey jock from high school?
Interesting that even in the UK, they still want to portray the "American Look."
You can talk about discrimination all you want, but plain and simple, a person in the front of the store with a missing arm is not going to help sell clothes. There's a reason why pretty girls are usually the hostesses at restaurants. Put the nice looking people up front and the "less desirables" in the back. It's a business decision, and if you want to blame someone, blame the general public, whom are drawn to things that are easy on the eyes. Do I agree with it? No. But it's a fact of life.
@gStein: I was in my kitchen this morning. I found guacamole dip left out from last night. I swear it smelled EXACTLY like an Abercrombie store. EWW.
I wish to see if their executives follow that code. Or are they "too good" for it? (Spoiler alert: This policy is a bunch of BS created by them.)
It's rare that I take issue with human vs. human conflicts (I'm more of a sucker for animals) but SERIOUSLY - this is just wrong. Ridiculously, insanely, backwardly wrong to the point where I'm pissed-off. Abercrombie FAIL on this one. I hope she sues the crap out of that useless company and the resulting judgment leaves the idiotic mid-level bureaucrats who chose to ban her to the stockroom homeless, jobless, and watching their own children starve. Dicks.
@lpranal:
Yes and no. Our school's jocks just weren't that interested in fashion. But the attitude is similar.
I think of David Bowie's 'I'm Afraid of Americans' whenever I walk by one of their creepy stores.
Yes, A&F sadly does still exist, and around me seems to be wildly popular. I haven't had any desire to buy clothing there, and thanks to policies like this, certainly will not in the future.
Sympathy to the woman if she went in thinking it was just another job where you can be good at something and not put up with all sorts of bullshit. But Abercrombie and Fitch epitomizes the business of peddling superficial sex appeal to teens with more money than common sense -- no more, no less. They are good looking people, but don't go to them for ethical values. You lie down with dogs, don't be surprised to wake up with fleas.
I'm confused. Was she sent in the back b/c she had a prosthetic arm or b/c she preferred to wear a short sleeve shirt, an "exception" to a rule granted by the manager and overruled by his bosses?
Guys that shop there deserve to be charged for looking like the gay men they pretend they're not.
Hey, didn't New Kids on the Block have a bunch of hits?
@DefineStatutory:
you know what's so funny, there are PLENTY of hot disabled people out there. Wouldn't the idiots at "Bitch Come Running" see this as a way to expand their marketshare?
Stupid stupid stupid stupid...
But, then again, who is surprised?
Wasn't she technically sent back to the stockroom for not removing a cardigan? She should have just taken off the sweater and continued to work. If they still insisted that she be removed from the floor, then that'd be something, but a sweater has nothing to do with her disability.
@bologna_wallet: that's cause if you look to the UK for your youth fashion examples, you get two types: drunken louts with vomit all over themselves, or prissy boarding school boys. Neither is a big seller. I guess they think we're cooler.
@lpranal: The one with the white seashell necklace on twine? YES. Except I knew some guys who wore those and wore Abercrombie, and they were actually nice.
@youbastid: Take a look at the Daily Mail article where this story was sourced. The woman is not unattractive.
I suspect in the big picture, A&F will lose more sales from this rotten story than what would have been lost from customers refusing to patronize a store that employs a woman with one arm.
Once again, this site gives a misleading headline. She wasn't put into the stockroom because of her disability. She was put there because of what she was wearing. I understand that she received prior approval to wear the sweater that she was wearing and I agree that she should be allowed to wear it. However, why does this site insist on sensationalizing stories?
She was asked to remove her cardigan as it didn't fit in with the store's policy. Just like a Wal-Mart worker has to wear their blue smock (what would happen if they came to work wearing Target red? They'd be asked to remove it), this store has a policy about the appearance of the employee. I don't disagree with that policy; they should be able to dictate what you wear. Would the store have said "Go back in the stock room" if the employee removed her cardigan to reveal a prosthetic arm? Maybe, maybe not.... but that's not what happened. She was asked to leave based on her clothing.
@lpranal: I think of Abercrombie & Fitch as this guy:
Yep. That's their arbiter of taste. Their embodiment of style. The apex of cool in the A&F universe.
I see Abercrombie and Fitch, I see someone trying really hard to be that guy.
And I point. And I laugh.
@yagisencho:
that's because your high school's jocks weren't gay pretending to be straight pretending to be less gay
I would put a HUGE fat chick at the front of a restaurant wearing a t-shirt that says, "Hell, yes the food is THAT good."
@youbastid: I don't walk into a clothing store and buy more because the people who work there are attractive. I'm not sure what stores you're going to. If you can't help me get a different size or check the back for more items, then I probably won't buy clothes there or I'd get someone else to help me - but her missing arm doesn't impede her from doing her job.
A person with a missing arm is not going to help sell clothes? How many people would notice right away that her arm was missing anyway? In any case, there is no reason for A&F to deny her a job because of something she can't change.
The issue Ambercrombie had was not with a prosthetic arm. It was with the fact that they were wearing a sweater.
The store manager overstepped his/her bounds by overriding the corporate policy and allowing a sweater to be worn. Someone from corporate came in and laid down the law.
I cannot blame A&F for wanting a standard look on their employees. Further, the ADA act requires companies to make reasonable allowances for people who's disabilities interfere with the job. This is not an issue of an artificial limb interfering with a job. This is an issue with someone's self consciousness about their artificial limb interfering with their ability to follow store policy.
I generally agree with consumerist in many of their stories, but they are in the wrong on this one and quite frankly should be ashamed of the sensationalist, misleading headline.
Fake boobs/tan/nails/blonde? That's the look A&F promotes!
Fake arm? Into the stockroom with you! This is an unacceptable kind of fake.
Maybe it's different in the UK from the US, but isn't it illegal to ask about disabilities (and age, I think) in a job interview? The face-to-face interview would be the time for them to decide whether she fit "the look," and make their decision based on that (as heinous as that sounds, it's probably pretty true).
It's not clear from the article whether she would have been allowed to stay up front if she was willing to just give up the cardigan, which seems pretty relevant.
If she was banished to the stockroom because she wouldn't wear the uniform, but they'd have been fine with the prosthetic arm showing to the public, then they are kind of lame, but not really douchey, and seem to have less issues with her body than she does.
If they originally told her to wear the cardigan not because she's uncomfortable baring her arm, but because they didn't want it showing to the public, and now they won't accept the cardigan, either, then they are massively douchey and deserve whatever abuse can be heaped upon them.
@BennyMigrationWitness_GitEmSteveDave: It seems to me that she was sent to the back because she violated the Look Policy by way of having a prosthetic arm and wanting to wear long sleeves.
So technically, she was sent to the back because of violating the Look Policy, but she had permission to violate it (so she wasn't violating the policy at all) and she only did so because she preferred to cover up her prosthetic arm.
@GitEmHomerJay!: I thought they sang "Love Fool", featured on the OST to William Shakespere's Romeo+Juliet starring Claire Danes and some guy.
I can't even go near that store, it just spawns douchebag if you even go near it.
Are THESE the jackasses who sell the "hollister" crap I see all over the place? What the hell is that all about?
Just another quick question. Am I the ONLY one who thought that the name was "Abercrombie & Finch"? ZB/c that's how I still say their name.
@YamiNoSenshi: The story here being in the UK, and the ADA being an American law, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the young woman doesn't have the same level of legal protection Americans have come to take for granted. Disability rights and public accommodations for the disabled are areas where the US is, generally speaking, far more enlightened than the EU.
Seriously, the Consumerist is one messed up website. NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE is it cited that the prosthetic arm is the reason she was put in the backroom. She is in the backroom because she was not meeting dress code. THAT'S IT.
Consumerist, get the f**k over it.
I think you have to be a half naked little boy to work there.
I think guys that shop there should hand in their "man card". They can get a free skin treatment as a reward.