A few days ago, I saw a few ex- store managers (of that famous department store , which features pictures of beautiful, naked teenagers) on TV. They had testified that they had been directed to:
-give fewer working hours to employees that management considered physically unattractive
-make life unpleasant for the “unattractoive” employees, so as to encourage them to quit
-try to hire the most good looking employees they could find
My question: is this illegal?Isn’t this discrimination, and counter to federal civil rights laws? Also, if these charges are proven to be true, do these actions constitute “hate” crimes?
I’m going off to A&F to fill out an application…I sense a big class action lawsuit coming on!
I had a friend who used to work for the GAP, and his experience wasn’t all that different. He was specifically asked every now and then by the managers if he had attractive friends that wanted a job there, and noticed the same practices of treating unattractive employees badly in an effort to get them to quit. I have a good feeling that I wouldn’t be hired at either store, or, if I was, I’d be treated badly because I don’t fit the modern American standards of beauty. (I’m tall, but not ridiculously thin, and I personally am a bit averse to A&F’s clothing style, although I do occasionally buy items from the GAP.)
Ralph, this most likely is a case of illegal discriminatory behaviour, and it should be stopped. Unfortunately, I’m not entirely sure if this is an issue that could even be prosecuted as a breach of civil rights laws.
Hiring or firing people on the basis of being “good looking” is not illegal, however, hiring or firing people for not fitting the store’s “All-American” look is illegal in thsi case. In A&F’s narrow little corporate mind, “All-American” translates to white, tall and small nosed–blond hair and blue eyes preferred. Non-whites (including Hispanic, Asian and African-Americans) have been discouraged from applying for jobs and those that have been hired have had their hours reduced after their store was visited by head office people. Or they have been assigned work such as folding clothes, washing windows or sweeping up and told not to wait on the customers.
It is fine for a store to hire people who reflect the demographic they want to sell to, but A&F goes over the line. I think there may be a class action suit (based on race discrimnation) in the works or just recently filed.
This was on 60 Minutes last night. There is a class action lawsuit involving former workers who were fired or discriminated against. Aparently, they discriminated not necessarily against ugly people, but people of non-caucasian races. One Filipino guy was told he could not work at a particular store because there were already too many Filipinos working there. Most of the workers who worked the floor and out front were white/blond hair/blue eyes, and they put the minorities in the back, stocking, etc. It was pretty shocking to me. I hate that fucking store. It makes me sick.
I don’t like buying my clothes from attractive people, actually. I feel kind of intimidated when I ask for the size 40s. Also, I keep thinking that they are laughing at me for not buying what’s cool or hip.
Those problems are my own, of course, but I certainly don’t see myself giving A&F some of my money with their approach.
A&F seems to be getting a lot of publicity with all the stuff that goes on.
But, in some sick and twisted way, A&F has a right to maintain their hiring practices as a private company.
I only go in there to fart.
I consider A&F the mall’s designated farting zone. Got a tummy-rumble? Take it there.
It’s a small thing as an individual action, but if I can succeed in fostering this attitude among the general populace, it can make a real impact. Sort of an ass-toots campaign.
(Lies, all lies.)
See, my problem with A&F is that I like the clothes. I really do. But when I was a blonde (I’m short and green-eyed, hella Irish-looking) I got a ton of attention when I went in there. Now that I’ve dyed my hair very dark brown, I get almost no attention from the employees whatsoever.
I went there the other day and almost bought one of their “blondes do it better” t-shirts. I was on line before I remembered that I’m blonde anymore. =(
~M
When I was young and naive, I liked their clothes. That was when I had the disposable income to buy $40 shorts and t-shirts.
But since then, I’ve discovered thrift stores. You can build an ensemble worth $5 at a thrift store that looks just as cool.
I watched the 60 Minutes piece last night, and I’m convinced that A&F discriminates based on race.
Discrimination as such isn’t illegal. Discrimination against certain classes is, but ugliness isn’t one of those classes.
A&F may discriminate based on race in a de facto sense, but it’s not express corporate policy. This is perfectly akin to what a company such as Fubu does, or what I’d say 99.8% of ethnic restaurants do.
However, they do try to get exclusively attractive people to work for them. As per the “All-American” argument, and the one Asian girl who kept saying “All-American isn’t All-White”, I’m not familiar with their campaign that indicated that they are officially a store catering to All-Americans (isn’t that Wal-Mart, where they sell “Wall stuff”?); moreover, the longstanding cultural norm that defines “All-American” is blonde hair blue eyes, Midwestern looking, football player or cheerleader type.
In conclusion, as SmackFu indicated, ugliness is not a protected class under Anti-Discrimination Laws (neither is obesity, but I digress…) and so this is not a HATE CRIME.
a and f has really taken a tumble. first they had scantily clothed underaged models, then the t shirt thing, and now hiring practices.
i haven’t been in an a and f since the underaged model thing. although if i’m ever in a situation to help larry mudd’s campaign i’ll consider darkening the door.
For anyone interested in a little schadenfreude: A&F’s sales are tanking.
Says who?
Uhhhh, not us to tell you the truth. Ask a foreigner what he thinks the typical American looks like. You are going to get that response the majority (WHICH DOES NOT MEAN ALL) the time.
Discrimination is not a “crime” in the sense that you can go to jail for doing it. The remedies are civil. Not hiring fat people or ugly people is also not a crime. It may, however, expose you to civil liability if you define ugly to be “non-white” though based on the few (and blessedly short) times I have been in the store I have seen plenty of minority sales people.
So “All-American” is defined by foreigners?
We export all of our definitions now. It’s cheaper with foreign-based definers. It’s also a smart move, politically-speaking. So, for instance, even though Merriam-Webster works its foreign-based word definition gurus as if they were in a sweatshop, Merriam-Webster has now instructed their employees to redefine “sweatshop” a bit from
to
It’s all very sneaky these days.
Wild guffaws!
Could it also be the right place for bra strap realignment, wedgie investigations and toe-jamb release?
Are the back-of-the-store unattractive A&F employees paid the same amount as the front-of-the-store A&F employees? Do they get the same benefits or the same opportunity for advancement in the company?
If it is all the same, is there really discrimination in hiring, firing or employment? Or, are some people just treated differently than other people and it seems unfair?