Abercrombie & Fitch: "Sorry, We Don't Hire Negroes.

[Miss Modular]

..During the day, at least

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030617/ap_on_re_us/abercrombie_lawsuit_6

Abercrombie Faces Discrimination Suit
Tue Jun 17, 6:47 PM ET


By DEBORAH KONG, AP Minority Issues Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Abercrombie & Fitch, the clothing chain that promotes a "casual classic American" look, has been hit with a discrimination lawsuit accusing it of cultivating an overwhelmingly white sales force.

When it does hire minorities, it channels them to stock room and overnight jobs, says the lawsuit, which seeks certification as a class action.

The lawsuit, filed Monday by nine Hispanic and Asian plaintiffs, alleges that Abercrombie discriminates against blacks, Hispanics and Asians. It says company policy requires all sales people to exhibit an all-white "A&F look."

Catalogs and store promotional materials display models who are mostly white, according to the lawsuit.

"If you look at the material they put out, they are cultivating an all-white look," said Thomas Saenz, vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the attorneys for the nine Hispanic and Asian plaintiffs. "It is difficult to understand why, given that their target age demographic is even more heavily minority than the rest of the population."

The company, based in New Albany, Ohio, targets college students with its upscale casual clothing. Its Web site says it features clothing "that compliments the casual classic American lifestyle." It has about 600 stores and some 22,000 employees nationwide.

Spokesman Tom Lennox said Tuesday that Abercrombie had not received a copy of the lawsuit and he declined to comment on its specifics, but said the company does not discriminate.

"As a company that prides itself on diversity we are dismayed by the lawsuit and take this matter very seriously," he said. "Abercrombie & Fitch represents American style. America is diverse and we want diversity in our stores."

One of the plaintiffs, Johan Montoya, alleges a Canoga Park store refused to hire him because he is Hispanic, even though he had experience working at another store in the same mall.

"It's one of those things I never thought would happen to me," said Montoya, a student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. "We live in a day and age where discrimination is looked down upon so heavily, it was simply absurd."

The company has been accused of racial insensitivity in the past. Last spring, it removed T-shirts from stores after Asian-Americans complained about depictions of two slant-eyed men in conical hats and the slogan "Wong Brothers Laundry Service — Two Wongs Can Make it White."

The lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American fund with the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

[El Blanco]

SO, he gets to sue because he wasn't hired and happens to be hispanic?

Majority of catalogs use white models. Where is that lawsuite?

[Miss Modular]

It validates everything I hate about A&F.

As the elder sister of someone who recieves a J-Crew Catalog, I've seen Black and Asian models in the catalog. Even The Gap uses people of other ethnicities every once in awhile.

BTW, Racial Discrimination is illegal.

[Anonymous]

I don't know, some clothing is race-specific. Picking up a Fubu catalog and seeing asians and honkeys hanging out in their fly gear would just look ridiculous(e). I can definitely understand it as a brand tailored towards a race.

It's kinda like that case with that gay dude that wanted to work at Hooters and filed a lawsuit. He needs to shut up.

*Note that I generally don't like the type of people that wear A&F as a conscious decision anyway, but that's more of a squares and rectangles thing.

[FS]

They make them work at night because they VANISH in the dark.

[Raven]

They make them work at night because they VANISH in the dark.

That's why they make the perfect security guards.

[Zhukov]

While I was standing in an unemployment line today, I noticed that the government building I was standing in was lavishly decorated with a multitude of various Aboriginal flags. When I got to the front of the line, I also noticed that some of the computer moniters had aboriginal flags stuck on them.

What I did not notice, however, was any Aboriginal people working there.

There were plenty in line with me.

As well as the flags, there were pictures of multicultural groups holding hands and smiling. "WE ARE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERS" they boasted.

'Sure, we are not against employing Aboriginals; it just so happens that they are uneducated and always drunk. Not our fault.'




>:

[VinceZeb]

El Blanco is onto something. I mean, is there real proof of discrimination or just someting that they made up? I mean, do you see fat people working at A&F? They make clothes for the thin, so by that assumption they should be sued for being discrimatory to hozontally challenged people.

[mburbank]

That's what the lawsuit will hopefully determine. If it turns out discrimination is an actual part of their policy, it's illegal.

Who knows, maybe it should be illegal to discriminate against fat people, but it isn't currently. If your poliyc is not to hire Blacks or Latinos for front line positions, you are breaking the law.

Since the trial hasn't taken place yet, apart from the fact that Abercrombie was once a purveyor of fine outdoor clothing and now appears to market teens getting ready to have sex, we don't know much.

[kellychaos]

What should they use as a demographic model for their hiring practices? Should it be based on the national ethnic demographic as they are a national (if not, international) company? Should they base it on the local ethnic demographic and hire people which fit that criteria and publish local catalogues that appeal to that local demograhic. OR, more simply, should they consider the demographic that actually buys their stuff and be held to hire only those people? I hate to say it but Vince DOES have a point. I don't so much see any overt racial prejudice in the A&F and similiar clothing stores in my local area but what I DO see are a lot of them filled with physically fit, pretty people of varying ethnicities. I think the ugly people have a better chance of pursuing this lawsuit. Considering the other side of the fence on the "looks" criteria, business do have a right to pick appealing people to represent them since looks are what sells in retail businesses like apparel, make-up, ect.

[mburbank]

I don't think ANYONE has a point yet. There's a charge, there's been no trail, no evidence has been presnetd one way or another.

The problem would be an actual policy. It would be VERY hard to prove intent regardless of their staff distribution. But intent has been proven before in similar cases, so it could be found here. Denny's had actual, provable policies about seating Black customers.

Lets all wait and see what evidence is introduced.

[El Blanco]

I think the ugly people have a better chance of pursuing this lawsuit.

WOOHOO! Free money...........er....uh...I mean

Its horrible how looks are used to discriminate against those ugly people....which I'm not one of......er...ya, thats what I meant



crap

[CaptainBubba]

Another case of the government interfering with the natural order of the business world.

An employer has the right to hire whomever he wants and should have the right to deny a job opportunity within his own business to whomever he chooses, for WHATEVER reason. If it is true that people of all races, sexes, cultures, and physical conditions have the same potential to do the same jobs, then the employer is already being punished by self sabotage.

Lets say an employer won't hire black employees during the day (the reason is irrelevant). Now lets say that the white employees he hires are not as productive as the black employees would have been. Hes hurting his own business by limiting his choices in employees.

But what if by hiring the black employees during the day the employer begins to lose customers because the demographic he is attempting to appeal to does not like fashion that is assosiated with black people? Is it not his right to protect his OWN business by hiring those whom he chooses?

Or we could be communist and the gov. could control all businesses, I dunno, you guys are the smart ones. Lol. :)

[Immortal Goat]

Another case of the government interfering with the natural order of the business world.

An employer has the right to hire whomever he wants and should have the right to deny a job opportunity within his own business to whomever he chooses, for WHATEVER reason.

Wrong! Employers have NO right to interfere with people's well being, and that is EXACTLY what they do when they refuse to hire people due to their racial background. The people who are most qualified, NO MATTER WHAT RACE, should get the job. This gives me inspiration for a new thread, though. Look for my "Affirmative Action" thread soon!

[CaptainBubba]

My god. I'm not one for open insults but you are an absolute retard.

By not hiring someone the employer is deciding that they do not wish to pay for the services that someone has offered. That is not interfering with the persons well being and to construe it as such your point of view would have to be so skewed that I can hardly imagine you even considering listening to an opposing argument.

It is your opinion that the most qualified should get the job. An employer should have the right to hire emplyees in his OWN business that are not the most qualified, but rather the employees he wishes to hire. It is the employers business, not everyone elses. What you're suggesting is communism. I will now move on to your affirmitave action thread and let this one resume its specific case.

[GAsux]

I'm with the Capt. here. If you own your own business, and hate blacks/whites/women/gays/donkeys/whatever, then it is your perogative to not employ said folks. The government CANNOT/SHOULD NOT compell you to do otherwise.

It's not the role of the government to tell a business who it should or should not hire. As Capt. Bubba mentioned, if an employer chooses to hire a less qualified applicant, that employer to some degree has already punished himself.

The remedy for this is simple. It must come from the consumer. Not the government. Just as the employer has the freedom to choose his employees, you as the consumer have the right to choose your retailer. Don't shop there.

[Vibecrewangel]

I think that the men getting hired at Hooters was one of the stupidest things ever.
Flat chested woman I can almost accept, but men......total B/S


Not that it is anything new. Anyone remember the Hot Dog on a Stick suit?

[kellychaos]

It's kinda like that case with that gay dude that wanted to work at Hooters and filed a lawsuit. He needs to shut up.
[/size]

Did he have nice boobies?

[kellychaos]

By not hiring someone the employer is deciding that they do not wish to pay for the services that someone has offered. That is not interfering with the persons well being and to construe it as such your point of view would have to be so skewed that I can hardly imagine you even considering listening to an opposing argument.


Absolutely. The owner's have NO obligation to anyone's "well being" but his own. It's HIS/HER business. Are they to be responsible for the flaws and bigotry of the world too? No, his part is to react to the world "as is" and run his business in such a way that it takes advantage of the idiocy of the world and make his/her business an efficient money-making entity.

[Immortal Goat]

If you seem to think I am Communist, then there is something wrong with you. I believe in free enterprise and all that stuff, but I do NOT think that employers have the right to keep people out of jobs that will provide them with money due to the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

Obviously there are going to be exceptions, like the guy that wanted to work at Hooters, but all in all, EVERY business should be equal-opportunity. Just because someone is a different color does NOT mean that they are less qualified for a job. Simple as that.

[GAsux]

So let's say you Dad opens up a donut shop. Because, you know, you and your family are big fans of free enterprise and all so owning a family business is part of the plan.

So let's say pops has the shop up and running, and decides that since he's not getting any younger, he ought to start training the heir to his donut throne. And nothing would make him happier than to pass off the family business to his beloved son.

But alas, you have no donut makin experience. All you know about donuts is what you've seen in a Kryspe Kreme box. I'm sure you could learn though right? But unfortunately, because of government mandated "competency" laws, your pops will have to hire the person most suited for the job, which is obviously not you.

Do you suppose it's fair for the government to decide who you will employ in your own PERSONAL business?

[WorthlessLiar]

I don't see exactly how the consumer check on discrimination will work. If it were suddenly legal to discriminate and one could not sue against discrimination, then people would not be aware of such business practices in many areas. If the Gap in my 99.9% white suburb were to have a policy against hiring blacks, odds are the consumers wouldn't know about it whether they agreed with such a policy or not.

Furthermore, I am dismayed with some of your priorities. The ideals of free enterprise and capitalism should not be held so sacred that we can't show initiative in making sure people can't be unfairly discriminated against in finding a means to make a living.

And Jebus, if the pops wants his son to run the donut shop, odds are the kid would get some donut training by the time he needed to take over.

[The_Rorschach]

I'm going to make my views on this extremely simple, but first, let me state that after the first few responces, I stopped reading them as they seemed to be rather silly.

Have any of you ever seen the signs which say "We Refuse The Right To Refuse Service"? Some places still have them, though laregly, they are a thing of another time. What it comes down to is the right of the corporate body vs the right of the individual.

Noone has the right to work, let alone whereever they desire. You will not find any such right in the Consitution, nor will you find it in any state charter. While it is unfair for a corporate body to judge an applicant by their race, creed or religion, I feel, they are completely within their own rights to do so. It is an ugly thing, but it is there perogative. When you have invested as much time and money as those which created the corporation in question have, then you have a right to see to it that the individuals which work there meet whatever requirements you have to ensure success. That is capitalism.

If he had waged a boycott, I would I would have sympathized, and applauded his civic duty as an example to be embraced by others. As it stands, I hold him in contempt. He is a self-seeking individual who is more concerned with his own wealth and betterment than improving conditions.

The courtroom is the last place true change comes from.

As it is, I think I may actually be shopping at A&F more often from now on.

[VinceZeb]

Does FUBU feature tons of non-blacks in their clothing ads?

This question was presented to someone on Scarbrough Country and the Malcom X wannabe couldn't answer the question. He just kinda went on about racism. Hell, I think the only thing he talked bout was racist America.

[Immortal Goat]

Vince, do you even know what FUBU stands for? If not, then I will enlighten you. It is a company owned by black people, and the company name stands for "For Us, By Us", referring to a predominantly African-American target audience. THAT is why the FUBU catalogue does not have tons of non-blacks in it.

[VinceZeb]

Goat, in your weak attempt to try and insult me, you actually made my point. You target your main consumer. With FUBU, you target the "young urban african-american". With A&F, you target the "young collegiate anglo-saxon". It isn't racism, it is good business practice.

[kellychaos]

Vince, do you even know what FUBU stands for? If not, then I will enlighten you. It is a company owned by black people, and the company name stands for "For Us, By Us", referring to a predominantly African-American target audience. THAT is why the FUBU catalogue does not have tons of non-blacks in it.

And you're defending THIS?! You're all over the place. When you make up your mind and intelligently decide one way or the other, feel free to post again.

[Big Papa Goat]

An employer has the right to discriminate when he's hiring, but that discrimination shouldn't be on the basis of race, religion etc. I don't know the law for you guys down in the states, but I'm pretty sure that goes against our constitution up in Canada.
But back on topic, the thing about men and flat chested women not being hired by hooters. In hooters case, men and flat chested women are not suited to the job, which is being a big jugged waitress. For Ambercrombie and Fitch, there is no reason for them to claim blacks and hispanics are not qualified for the job on the basis of their race. FUBU does it with blacks? Well, they're just as wrong, and both of these companies are perpetuating neo-segragationist policies that are only driving people of different cultures apart, with no possible benefit for any. I mean, what difference does it really make if there is a black salesmen selling you you're shitty ambercrombie and fitch sweater, or a white guy selling you whatever the hell FUBU sells, we have to work our way past our fear and discrimination against people that aren't like us through tolerance and understanding and if I sounded like a hippy, then give me some pot and a hacky sack and call me a hippy dammit!

[mburbank]

I stopped shopping at A&F when they started their whole 'Branding' bullshit. I think anyone who wears their product should carry a sign that says "I'm marginally less of a moron than people wearing Tommy Hilfiger crap."

The collective argument tha businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want is A.) Not what our current laws allow for, and I'm always amazed by how little reggard for and knowledge of law is held by so many upstanding patriots

and B.) Dangerous. Unfettered business would grind you up for dogfood if their was a profit margin in it. You may object to speciffic regulation, or the scope of regulation, but keep in mind the unregulated business produces child labor, forced labor, the manipulation and addition of physically addictive ingredients, carcinognes in your backyard etc. etc. etc.

How many of you think your boss is really great person who has a healthy respect for you as an individual and wants to work with you for the betterment of your company? If your hand is up (and by the way, mine is) you're damn lucky.

Now how many of you think your boss would get you to work unpaid overtime if he thought he could get away with it?

[Isaac]

Vince, theres a problem in your argument, beacuse I've also seen you say that blacks and other minoritys aren't discriminated against, that they need to pull them selfs up, but you have to acknowledge that in some areas, with out anti-descrimination law suits, blacks and other minortys would never get a fair wage for there work, like in the south, nor would they get a job equal to there skill...either a)you don't acknowledege this as a result, b)you don't see how these things relate, c)your a bigot, or d)some combination of previos

[Immortal Goat]

I do not think that segregation is right. A company is allowed to have a target audience, such as FUBU has blacks, but that does NOT mean that FUBU should only hire blacks to work in thier store. If their catalogue has only blacks, that is fine, but they should not segregate in the workplace. If they want a predominantly black staff, then hire the white people for the janitorial jobs and the blacks as the front-of-store employees.

[The_Rorschach]

Just for note, I do know the law, and I stand by my previous statements. I think he butted heads on a similar issue in the past when we were discussing the Robber Barons, so I won't bother repeating an old argument, but I will say this:

If I owned a house, and invested into its property value through landscaping, restoration and buying furnishings and fixtures to make it more attractive, I would be in the right. If, after having done these things, I found I had too little time to upkeep my investment due to my work schedule, and I hired someone to do the yardwork and housework, I would still be in the right. Now if I wanted expressly a French Maid and a Scottish groundskeeper, why would I be in the wrong? It's my house, and my money going into their pockets. Why must I placate the first minority who applies if I do not desire them?

People are not entitled to work, they are not entitled to jobs. They are entitled to certains rights, which the law cannot curtail, and certain liberties the law can restrict. They cannot, however, demand placement, and it is folly for society to think they can.

[WorthlessLiar]

Rorschach, placement is not the issue here. No one is necessarily claiming the right to get hired. That's just something you've cynically imposed upon the person bringing this case forth. The right in question here is the right not to be judged by an employer soley on the basis of factors such as skin color. Obviously, you've made it clear that we still differ in this regard, which is fine, but don't try to set up a straw man here. I find your posts arrogant and dismissive of the real issue.

Why is it that you wish to shop at abercrombie more often?

Is it the kiddie thong underwear or the Asian bashing t-shirts?

Probably just for that rich white prick look.

[Anonymous]

If their catalogue has only blacks, that is fine, but they should not segregate in the workplace.
Why? Modelling is a job too. It's the same situation, only you're less familiar with it and therefore more familiar with talking out your ass.
If they want a predominantly black staff, then hire the white people for the janitorial jobs and the blacks as the front-of-store employees.
Isn't that already what A&F is doing, with the roles reversed? Even if it wasn't, how is that a solution anyway? One race would be getting higher pay, and you'd have something else to cry about.

[kahljorn]

Victorias secret won't hire men. I find that offensive. I applied there and they said no men, even though I told them I'm profecient in bra fitting and other such procedures. IM SUEING.