they probably should have admitted they made a mistake when the mother wrote to the company three times, once with a certified letter. Perhaps they could have at least responded to her before she had to file the complaint (which, from what i've gathered, isn't a lawsuit).

I can see how some numb-nuts at the store made the mistake of not understanding the need for the accomodation, but when the corporate offices refuse to even respond to a simple complaint, that probably would have made me angrier. It doesn't sound like the family was ever after monetary compensation, just a simple apology and a promise that they would re-evaluate their policies, or a least train their employees better.

but it is pretty amazing that Abercrombie has dragged this out, they should have settled and been happy with the child's medical records as proof that she was autistic, and left it at that. instead, they are appealing a $115,000 decision, which is not very much to them. they may not know their own policies, but they seem to be consistent at knowing how to be jerks.

The mother filed the complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, which did sue A&F.

Based on the summary of the ALJ's findings of fact, it sounds like the "numb-nuts" at the store had a better and more sympathetic understanding of things than the people in the corporate offices did.

Just clarifying that the mother didn't file the lawsuit, the Department of Human Rights did.

And common sense would tell you that if someone explains their disability and their needs to a store employee, they could show a little empathy and make an exception rather than repeating a company policy they can't even find.

That's a slippery slope.

The employee was following company policy. As MC stated, the problem seems to lie more with corporate. The employee tried to be accomodating (I didn't initially see the part about being able to try the clothes on at home -- I've never heard someone in retail give that as an option).

Gotcha.

I'd agree that's how it should be. But if corporate has told the store managers that they cannot make exceptions to the policy (and despite his not being able to find it, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it was the policy), then I can't blame an assistant manager for doing what he's been told to do -- especially when mom has gotten on the phone with corporate and they wouldn't make an exception.

I worked a retail job where we had a very liberal return policy, so this was an option. However we were HUGE on customer service and I would have let a family member assist another in a fitting room, though we were a store where we enforced one to a fitting room. Some of it was for theft reasons, but it was also because people would get freaky/intimate and I'd have to break up the party. I would have gotten in more trouble for not allowing a family member to help if there was a complaint (and subsequent bad press) than the chance of offending someone, or having a loss of a few hundred dollars. Employees stole more than customers anyway, but bad press is much harder to justify.

Sidebar:

I'm at work right now, so I can't read the full articles yet. I've noticed a few posters have said that the medical records were presented to someone. Did the sisters carry the records with them to the mall, or was this something that was presented after the complaint was filed?

No. They came in as part of the discovery during the lawsuit.

Interesting. I've never heard of it, especially with teenagers.

When I worked in retail (Blockbuster), we had a decent return policy that was set by corporate. We had very little leeway, though, when it came to trying to accomodate each and every customer. I would hope that no one thought my refusal to bend the rules constituted discrimination.

So the two (teenage) girls only explained that the younger sister had autism? I'm sorry, but I wouldn't have taken their word for it, either.

Pardon my ignorance, but is it possible to tell whether or not someone has autism just by looking/actions? Does it vary based on where they fall on the spectrum?

Did either of the articles say whether or not the policy included parents with their younger children?

The folks at the corporate office were concerned with civil liability. The Assistant Manager was worried about losing his job.

Anytime a company gets mail asking them to confess to something which could subject them to liability, they're not going to confess to anything. That'd be silly.

And asking for proof that the child is what she claims to be? That's 100% relevant and important as to whether there's even a valid claim.

It wasn't and isn't my place to determine someone's documented disability but to be as reasonable with accommodating them while providing a positive and pleasant shopping experience. Sure there is an off chance someone was BSing me, but better to not offend someone and get bad press than to make an exception. Granted I worked this job in college and was familiar with Autism and Aspbergers, so I am a bit more in tune, but offending the customers was something to be avoided. I worked for a company that competes with Walmart so the prices may be a bit higher but people chose the store for our policies and procedures, and a lot of that was the customer service.

I also filled in as a supervisor when there wasn't a manager on duty, and from the cart catcher to the regional manager the first part of training was always to make the customer happy and to get them to return. They were aware of the impact of one person bad mouthing the company and the ripple effect, so we tried to avoid those situations. it was always bad when an entry level employee would follow policy and a manager would undermine them. I like that I can make choices to help a customer, and that I could say "This is the policy I am supposed to follow, but I am happy to call a manager as I do not have the authority to deviate from it, just one moment and they will come help you." It kept my morale and self esteem intact, the customer would still respect me, and I would not get in trouble as the manager made the next move and would have to answer to corporate.

I may be a bit jaded, as the majority of my customers at BBV set out to BS me.

On paper, it makes sense to try to be as accomodating as possible. But that can lead to more problems ("Well, you just let those two girls in together! Why can't WE go in? Fine, then I have autism, too!").

And as much as I wanted to maintain the company image, I was more concerned about keeping my job.

It depends a great deal, both on where the person falls on the spectrum and on the observer's experience. I don't think any random salesperson would be able to tell that my kid is on the spectrum, but we've met a few adults who, because they have kids on the spectrum themselves or had taught kids on the spectrum, picked up on it remarkably quickly -- within a minute or two.

I don't think either one said, but since A&F doesn't (as best I remember) carry children's clothes, I'm not sure that would've been an issue when the policy was drafted.

Thank you.

They also have the abercrombie/Abercrombie Kids brand. I'm wondering how they'll explain that policy in one of those stores (or if the rule is only in place for the general A+F stores).

ETA: To add on to that, if a parent decides to take his/her child into the dressing room at a regular A+F, I wonder if that raises eyebrows. That policy probably does need to be examined.