^Hahahaha! Super funny... I've worked there for over a year and as far as I know it's simply to prevent theft. Perhaps having an accomplice in the dressing room helps one steal? I honestly have no idea.

A&F is over 100 years old. For most of its history, it sold sporting goods and outdoorsy clothing. They outfitted Charles Lindburgh for his trans-Atlantic flight. Steinbeck mentioned the store along with Field and Stream in Travels with Charley. The main (and for years only) store was on Madison Ave., but they had a catalog as well. The basement of the Madison Ave. store had a shooting range in it, while at a pool on the roof, you could learn to fly fish.

They went bankrupt in the 70s and closed. The Limited bought A&F in the 80s and brought us the current version of A&F.

BTW, Hollister is a brand of A&F.

But, the other side to that is this...the company admits their mistake, the mom drops the DHS thing, and still files the lawsuit after A&F admits they did something wrong.

From a PR perspective, I'd like to think there's a way they could have apologized without an admission of guilt. I went through a whole media relations training on that subject, I just can't remember the specifics, haha.

Didn't Hemingway kill himself with a gun that was bought from A&F, or manufactured by A&F?

That is the story, that he used a shotgun he bought there to kill himself.

Yeah - it actually would have been "ludicrous" for A&F to not have an independent evaluation once the lawsuit was initiated ... I mean, it's completely insane to think they'll simply take the family's word at it when they're facing down pretty series accusations.

The family's (apparent and purported) interest in fighting against similar discrimination against those with autism comes with a price, and part of that price is proving that their daughter does indeed fall within the autism spectrum as they've claimed.

Maybe I have a bias, since I didn't start working until I started college. No job = no food or partying. I made sure my friends knew that they wouldn't be getting special treatment if they came into my store.


Back to corporate? No. Back to the store or regional/district manager? Maybe.

Exactly. People do this all the time in arguments, even kids. "I'm so sorry for the way this all turned out and I wish it had been different." Read: "I refuse to apologize for any of the crap I did, but I don't want you to dropkick me into next week so I'll say this instead."

"We apologize that our employees followed our own rules and their training to the letter - while what the employee did violated the spirit of the rules, we do not expect our associates to be able to make a snap decision on something as subtle and complex as autism, and neither should you, hence why we make the rules black-and-white (hopefully that analogy does not violate any sort of Federal act). Next time, make sure the child has a visible handicap, so we can avoid all of this posturing and even our gray-collar staff can figure this out. Be safe, and wear pre-torn jeans. One love, Abercrombie and/or Fitch."

A&F doesn't exactly have a great reputation for handling litigation, but even I'm not entirely sure they should offer any sort of olive branch when their theory is that they did nothing wrong.

But even that type of apology gets iffy, for the reasons discussed by Kevin, KSigRC and others. When you deal with litigation, you have to be VERY careful about what you say. Something that would seem like an obvious statement in other situations (like an argument between children) can take on a whole other importance in a litigation or pre-litigation situation.

I did know that Hollister was the Old Navy to A&F's proverbial Gap / Banana Republic.

A&F was in Oakridge Mall in Vancouver, BC for many years also. Now that space is demolished and is a food court. :o

Yep, they probably could have responded to one of her many letters using vague language to apologize, without being terribly specific and the mom probably would have been happy.

Even when customers are completely in the wrong, and the retailer has done nothing, most respectable companies will have some sort of polite response.

I understand that there are some people who are afraid to bend policy in fear of losing their jobs and I can see how that happened at the store level. But when a corporate office is so arrogant that they ignore their customers repeatedly, especially after having a history of discrimination, then they probably deserve what they got.

The mother made repeated attempts to contact them in different formats to give the company a chance BEFORE going to the department of human rights. If her intention was to sue all along, she probably would have called a lawyer that same day to file a civil suit. She didn't, and A&F should have taken that risk and responded at their first opportunity.

Yeah, but...nothing about Abercrombie and Fitch stores give the vibe that they're polite or are a respectable company. It's mostly just suburban wannabes. I don't even think they still are owned by the original company, so it's basically just some random mall brand.

I feel bad for the little girl though. Now people will whisper and say things like "that's the abercrombie and fitch girl, omg"

Like I said earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1845417) They went bankrupt in the 70s and closed. The Limited bought A&F in the 80s and brought us the current version of A&F.

didn't catch that, thanks for reposting.

Unlike A&F corporate, I try to be helpful. :D