Abercrombie & Fitch Lawsuit

[STDiva]

http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2009...s-employees-is-its-image-yup-another-lawsuit/

Riam Dean has a prosthetic arm that attaches at the elbow, and she typically wears a sweater to cover the prosthetic. While A&F employees are required to wear jeans and a polo shirt, she was given permission to wear a white cardigan while working on the floor. But only a few days after she started work, the store was paid a visit by the “visual team.” This group’s purpose is to sure the shop and its staff look up to code. One of the members of the team demanded she take off the cardigan, but she insisted she had permission to wear it. Nevertheless, she was asked by management to continue her employment in the stockroom, far out of the public eye. Management claimed that she “violated the ‘Look Policy,” which is an imperative part of working for such a prestigious clothing outlet. As if she could help the fact that she is, unfortunately, missing an arm. Totally her fault, I suppose. The nerve. Pssh.

I'm not trying to defend Abercrombie & Fitch or anything, but let me get this straight. She was happy to work at a place where someone born with acne, bad teeth or was overweight was discriminated against, but, until A&F happens to dislike her "flaw", does she give a thought to justice?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Hot Mega]

http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2009...s-employees-is-its-image-yup-another-lawsuit/



I'm not trying to defend Abercrombie & Fitch or anything, but let me get this straight. She was happy to work at a place where someone born with acne, bad teeth or was overweight was discriminated against, but, until A&F happens to dislike her "flaw", does she give a thought to justice?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Well, A&F has the right to enforce a dress code. The dress code in and of itself is not discriminatory and they apparently don't have a problem with her prosthesis....she's the one who has a problem showing it.

I suppose for example, Hooters wouldn't be Hooters if they couldn't enforce their dress code. :2 cents:

 

[pornlaw]

I am not a Barrister but I am an American attorney and she would have a fairly easy time with this one in the US courts.

They apparently do have a problem with her arm and she was taken off the floor and put into the stockroom.

The problem she will have are damages. What are her damages ? She still works for A&F and probably makes the same wage. So while A&F might be in the wrong in the US her recovery would be fairly limited.

Michael

 

[Hot Mega]

I am not a Barrister but I am an American attorney and she would have a fairly easy time with this one in the US courts.

They apparently do have a problem with her arm and she was taken off the floor and put into the stockroom.

The problem she will have are damages. What are her damages ? She still works for A&F and probably makes the same wage. So while A&F might be in the wrong in the US her recovery would be fairly limited.

Michael

I'm not an attorney nor a member of any Bar Assoc. but as I understand it, she wasn't reassigned because of her arm but because she refused to wear prescribed attire apparently required for her initial job. Where is the cause of action?

To use the Hooter's analogy again; Hooter's has specific attire for their waitresses. If an accommodation were made for a waitress that was against franchise policy and it was later overrode by a superior authority within the organization what is her cause of action... especially when she was retained but merely reassigned to accommodate her wishes?

I would think I have the right as an employer to require and enforce a uniform/attire specific dress code. :2 cents:

 

[STDiva]

I think they are using the uniform infraction as an excuse to not have someone with a prosthetic limb in the front of the store.

 

[assholebythedoor]

They need a bigger chair.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think they are using the uniform infraction as an excuse to not have someone with a prosthetic limb in the front of the store.

Why?? Employing the "disabled" is highly politically correct and would likely enhance their interests IMO.

Secondly, they obviously have had and maintained a dress code for the attire worn by certain employees BEFORE she started working there.

You might have a point if this was new policy after her employment.

 

[assholebythedoor]

It wasn't even a big deal.

 

[Petra]

I think she'd have a case if they put her in the stockroom AFTER she took off the sweater and followed the dress code. But she didn't want to comply with company policy so inorder to accomidate her they moved her to the stock room...which in my view is reasonable.

Now, if she agreed to take off the sweater and then they decided to send her to the stock room...then I'd think she'd have a clear case of discrimination.

 

[pornlaw]

I'm not an attorney nor a member of any Bar Assoc. but as I understand it, she wasn't reassigned because of her arm but because she refused to wear prescribed attire apparently required for her initial job. Where is the cause of action?

A jury in the US would see through that very easily. The issue is not whether she was discriminated against -- she was, the issue is where are her damages ?

My pratice is in this area, ADA, FEHA ect... I dont see major damages for her.

 

[Hot Mega]

A jury in the US would see through that very easily. The issue is not whether she was discriminated against -- she was, the issue is where are her damages ?

My pratice is in this area, ADA, FEHA ect... I dont see major damages for her.

What would they see? She was hired under an existing policy and if she had all four fully functioning limbs and wanted to wear a cardigan because she was cold...I would think they have a right to reassign her to an area where her dress code is not relevant to the job.

I'm not sure what a jury is supposed to see through unless they are just siding with a "disable" person against a corporation.

She wants to work in the store front but she doesn't want to adhere to the dress code. I don't find the "there" there.

I could even see if they insisted she wear a cardigan in order to hide her prosthetic arm against her wishes....

They are willing to accept her as she is and have her represent their corporation as she is as long as it conforms with their dress code.

If she thought there was some plan afoot to get her in the back...why didn't she simply call their bluff and remove the cardigan?

 

[Gomorra]

I worked at Nordstroms awhile back and there were 2 dress code violations. The punishment was a write up and they were sent home to change or work with no pay. NO ONE was ever transferred to the stock room for something like this. That's what will be looked at... How many people in AF's history, have been transferred to the stock room for A dress code violation?

 

[Kingfisher]

What's next? Only fat kids can work at ice cream stores, asians can only work at nail salons and massage parlors, hispanics at mexican foor places... Oh wait...

 

[STDiva]

I think A&F's reputation for only hiring "good looking" people will help this girls case.

 

[Legzman]

sue A&F

most people don't give a thought to discrimination till it happens to them.

 

[Rey C.]

It seems like the hole for A&F is that she was given permission to wear the cardigan, and then that permission was taken away. Does that constitute discrimination? I don't know. And also, did she have an employment contract whch stated that she'd always be on the floor and not in the stockroom? I doubt it. They didn't fire her... just gave her a job in another location within the store. But then, it comes back to how and why she was moved to the stockroom.

Sounds like an interesting (and not a clearcut) case.

 

[Hot Mega]

I worked at Nordstroms awhile back and there were 2 dress code violations. The punishment was a write up and they were sent home to change or work with no pay. NO ONE was ever transferred to the stock room for something like this. That's what will be looked at... How many people in AF's history, have been transferred to the stock room for A dress code violation?

She didn't merely violate a dress code. Because of her personal circumstance she expected A&F to adjust their policy to include additional attire she felt aesthetically comfortable in. They could have simply said no and if you want to wear a cardigan, you and your cardigan can work somewhere else. Instead, they compromised...they allowed her to keep her job and her cardigan while they were able to maintain a consistent dress code.

What people don't realize is when you make exceptions for one....why wouldn't you have to make exceptions for someone else's circumstance? If played out to it's logical end, pretty soon you really won't have dress code to speak of.

They're not discriminating against her...they're discriminating against cardigans on their store front personnel. Off with the cardigan she can work in the store front...

 

[Wainkerr99]

Sounds like a compromise, which imo is usually the best way to go. Better to work something out than cut someone off. A&F are not breaking any moral or ethic code. What would it win? Permission for employees to wear their own garb to cover up prosthetics?

This employee made her own embarrassment A&F's problem. A good compromise was reached, which is unusual in today's employer's market. It was done due to her own manager's initial decision to let her wear the cardigan in the first place.

Funny I was reading an article yesterday about how slowly employers are letting people be employed that have dreads, piercings and tattoos. It gave advice. For instance, dreads can be pushed back, most rings or studs removed, tattoos covered at least for the interview.

Things change as society's premise changes.

I am glad she still has a job. Job hunting is one of the worst things to have to go through.

I should imagine apart from strictness in code, they simply want customers to easily find employees. Not every staff member is behind the counter all the time.

 

[Jeep!]

Aye, job hunting's a bitch. And yeah, it's pretty much a clear-cut case in A&F's favour. I do empathise with the chick, though. I've been wearing the wrong uniform at work for years, and you do tend to get a bit attached to it.

 

[Hot Mega]

they simply want customers to easily find employees. Not every staff member is behind the counter all the time.

Good point.:thumbsup: