GC lawyers, please feel free to correct me, but I don't think body size is a protected class in most jurisdictions.

:confused:

I worked at A&F for a few months during the summer between my sophomore and junior year in college. Almost every employee was greek. My friend (a TriDelta) told me to come in and interview for the job. The manager asked two questions. The first one being if I have ever worked in retail before. The second question was which sorority I was apart of. I was hired that very day.
We all use to laugh about the interviewing process. It was a joke. If you looked good, you were asked two questions tops and were hired. If you didn't look good, it was a slightly more rigurous interview and you probably wouldn't have gotten the job.
My manager use to stand out in front of the UCF student union recruiting girls and guys who walked by wearing their greek letters.
I stayed for only two months. Working there put me in debt. You have to buy their clothing and it is EXPENSIVE even with the discount. Everytime the got a new clothing line in, you were required to buy more clothes that matched the new line. There were specific uniform guidelines. Now, there were about 50 employees so we each got about 6-18 hours a week and got paid $6 an hour. So, imagine earning about $120 a week (which was my average) and then needing to buy the A&F employee "uniform" about ever 2 weeks. Every two weeks, I would drop $500 on clothing to wear to work. Every employee did the same. A&F loses no money on salaries. Absolutely ridiculous. The slogan was "Abercrombie isn't a job...it's a hobby."

No, because at present, size isn't a legally protected status in the way that race and gender are.

Edited to add: Some jurisdictions in the US allow challenges based on size discrimination -- San Francisco has such a law on its books -- but it's not widespread in the US, and I don't think it's on the books in Canada.

last summer i hear that they had to pull thong underwear from their abercrombie store(u know the one for kids) that said sexy and vixen on the front...ok how gross is the idea of a nine year old in a thong that says sexy on it...sometimes this company goes way to far.

Though not surprising, this lawsuit is ridiculous. The company is targeted towards the avg college kid. They target an audience and wish to convey an image. Is it so wrong to choose to hire the look of people to whom you target? Hire people that look and seem really cool, and people might seem them and say damn, i like their style...i want to look like that. Isn't that essentially the concept that glamour magazines work on?

Also, the company does go a little far, but that is how style has come to where it is. By pushing limits you can find out how far you can go. I'm not sying it's good, but overall they're inventive, and we all know they've patterned what we call style

I think there's a difference between an "image" and the context of the lawsuit.

Someone mentioned earlier something about Hot Topic. Anyone can put on some eyeliner and have that "look" ... but with a place like A+F, you can't just do something like that. Sure you could go to their store and spend thousands of dollars on clothes but you would never quite look like the waif models in the pictures.

At least that's my take on it.

That's what I was just going to say. If you're a crunchy granola type who wants to work at Sephora, you can slap on some makeup and pretty clothes and you'd at least have a chance at getting hired. If you're a preppy kid who wants to work at Hot Topic, you can put on some black clothes, some chains and some eyeliner and have a fighting chance. But if you're less-than-pretty and you want to work at A&F, you can't do anything short of major plastic surgery. There's a different between requiring a certain clothing style to work at a store and requiring a certain "look."

A&F is perhaps the most obvious utilizer of the "living advertisement," in that the employees in their store are intended to the serve the same purpose as their models. But what if every business decided to adopt this concept? People who were ugly wouldn't be able to get a job. That's why anti-discrimination laws were put in place to begin with -- so that people couldn't get passed over for jobs for something that had no influence on their ability to perform the tasks needed for the job. Being gorgeous has no influence on whether or not you can ring up clothes and fold sweaters.

I think that along with this lawsuit, we're going to see some kind of discussion on whether or not the "living advertisement" theory is valid. If Abercrombie claims that its employees serve the same purpose as its models, it is basically claiming that looks-ism (and in many cases, racism -- if blacks and Asians and Hispanics don't possess "the A&F look" they're SOL) is a valid basis for hiring policies, and this could set a precedent (either in favor or against) for other cases too.

But what this practice shows is that Abercrombie assumes that the 'average college kid' is not a person of color. Statistics aside (yeah, I know there are more white folks in University than people of color), this policy can be seen as sending the message that "You're not welcome at Abercrombie & Fitch."

I was reading a news story today about how major companies (like Procter and Gamble) are stepping up their efforts to do more 'tailored' advertising within ethnic communities. You know how you can watch Friends and see a McDonald's commercial that has mostly white people in it, but turn over to UPN to watch Girlfriends, and the McDonalds ads are filled with Blacks and Latinos? In the article, someone was quoted as saying that people of color view things like this differently than white folks; in essence, a white person can look at an ad that has women of color and white women in it and say "what a group of beautiful women", whereas a person of color will look at the ad and say "ah, there's someone in there who looks like me, this company must care about my community." It might be a nonsense lawsuit, but the feeling of exclusion is very, very real for some folks and shouldn't be dismissed.

But what do I know? I'm too damn old and have too much booty for Abercrombie anyway. :D

This is very important. Personally, it wouldn't surprise me at all if A&F is stark raving guilty. It's obvious that they have created an image for college students with more money (or credit) than taste and the high schoolers who want to look like them--it's just HOW far they have taken the pursuit of the look that may be illegal. Call it "jackpot justice" if you want, but discrimination on the basis of race is against the law. If you applied at Hot Topic and you were qualified, you could probably be hired--I know plenty of forty-somethings and preppies who worked there!

It seems that to A&F, the "average college kid" is white, good-looking in a certain way, is in a fraternity or sorority, and has the desire to spend $40 on a long-sleeved tee--I guess after four years at one of the best universities in the nation, I don't know many "average college kids." Too bad.

Did I mention that I think the clothes suck? Give me a J.Crew or Benetton any day!

I will get flamed, but It is up to the Employer who is hired to work for them , not the entire Damn Govt and Racial Groups!

I get so sick and tired of being told that a business should hire so many differnt persuasions!

When I had My previous business, I had 2 white and 3 black , 1 latino and 3 Female workers, we were all friends and would go out after closeing and have drinks and play pool! We would meet at each others houses to do a little BBQ and relaxing!

Right now, I am working the whole thing myself 6/11s simply for the fact that most people who come in need a haircut, shave, and decent clothes! I lost my only and best help because of racial personage running her off!

Being a small business owner does not give anyone of you the right to tell me I have to hire someone because of race or gender! If you think you can then you and the US Govt. may kiss my unwashed ASS!

Over do rightous people make me sick at my stomache!!!!



:mad:

HUGE PET PEEVE OF MINE HERE....sorry to rant but I get so freakin' pissed off when I see WHITE used as a color to describe a race of people, and then something supposedly more PC (such as "person of color" or "asian-american" or what-have-you) to describe another race of people. I will preach it till the day I die...if you are going to use WHITE for one group then use BLACK/BROWN/GREY/PURPLE/etc. to describe the other group. Otherwise, you should use Caucasian and African-American (or whatever the case may be). It is, in my never-humble opinion, discriminatory and degrading to call someone "white" when you use a "PC" term for someone else.

And yes, I can PROUDLY say that when I see a group of "beautiful women" in an ad that I will say to myself "what a group of beautiful women" --- I will not say "oh, there aren't enough WHITE people in the group so they must be anti-white and I'm not going to shop there" -- I don't operate that way and its pretty sh*%%y that other people DO act that way, but then will be the first in the line that reads:

"SUE HERE - Please take a number and your lawsuit will be filed accordingly..."

(oh, and I am also proud to say that I am too old and have too much of everything to work/shop at A&F!)

It isn't a bad thing that they act like that -- in fact, it's completely natural.

In my women's studies class, our professor put us through the following exercise: spend one entire day going through your normal activities and thinking how your race relates to how you perform each one. In other words, you should be thinking about how your race relates to watching TV, eating dinner, brushing your teeth, etc. The point of this experiment? Most of us white kids had a pretty hard time trying to think of how our race relates to, say, waiting at the bus stop. But the non-whites said the experiment was easy for them because they already go through life being aware of how their race relates to every little thing they do.

Basically, seeing a bunch of white women in a TV ad isn't going to surprise anybody because it's the status quo. But when you see something that goes against the status quo -- a similar commercial, only with black women -- you're going to take notice . . . especially if you fall into the group of people who are aware of how their race affects everything (i.e. minorities).

I think there are a whole hell of a lot of us white people out there, while we're usually not racist, take the priviledge of not having to worry about how our race affects things for granted. People of color don't have that priviledge.

See above rant on WHITE and PEOPLE OF COLOR. By the way, y'all - I am not white. A little on the light side yes, but then again, nobody down South has seen the sun for about 9 months! If I could get skinny by watching it rain, I'd be a size -30 by now!

Anyway - I don't take anything for granted - I have been put in the position of being discriminated against for being Caucasian - but some people think that that is perfectly okay.

Seriously - this sounds like sarcasm, but its not intended to be - what is the deal with "women's issues" classes? Are there also "men's issues" classes? I guess the "me" in me says "can't we just not look at a person for the skin, genitalia, hair, etc. and have just people" -- does everything have to be put in a category.

I really get offended by "women's history month" because there is not a "men's history month" -- why discriminate against the men in this country/world that have done great things? I would rather be "judged" as great in the whole scheme of things, than being a tag-line added because some woman felt like woman-kind (or womyn-kind...geez :rolleyes: ) was being "held back" since they didn't have their very own month of recognition. I don't want that for my kids - I want them to grow up knowing that everyone possesses a special quality that makes them "them" -- not that they need to judge people based on appearance, etc.

I have said it before and I will say it again -- race/sex will always matter to *some people* even though they are the ones bitching the loudest that it shouldn't....think on that one - it really makes sense if you read it right.

Maybe we are getting down to something here AXOAlum!!:)

I am like you, I look at advertising, and say damn are they the neat great looking people!

If they are not ad ready they should not be in Ads, I dont see what the color had to do with it!

If I said I never dated a Latino, African-American, or Asian, I would be a liar! Yes, I have! Oh yes the Honkey Caucausian!

I to get so tired of the PC of What the US Govy Tells us who to like because of race and Color and Creed!

What does that mean now that we cannot say GOD or anything else!:mad:

Rambling and getting Tired!!!

Good nite Tom!!!!:D

Tom, I think you missed the point. This thread is not about affirmative action, but rather should it be within a companies right to hire employees that fit a certain look rather than on ability?
If A & F is using hiring practices that revolve around a certain look (which appears not to include minorities) rather than ability, then I would say that they are discriminating, and that is illegal.

As a small business owner, wouldn't you rather hire someone who had the ability to do the task they are assigned to do or hire someone who fits a certain look you're going for even if they are a few bricks short of a load?