Abercrombie & Fitch fined for refusing to let teen help autistic sister
 

Abercrombie denied that their customer had autism after not allowing accomodations, and then refused to apologize to her family, even after the Department of Human rights fined them:

http://www.startribune.com/local/sou...3aPc:_Yyc:aUUT

and

http://www.humanrights.state.mn.us/e...ase_month.html

how sad that abercrombie could not realize that a mistake had been made and at the very least, an apology warranted.

This was the craziest part to me:

Abercrombie & Fitch challenged the family's claim that Molly was disabled/autistic, requesting medical and school records and subjecting the girl to an interview with a forensic psychologist, her mother said. Molly told the psychologist that the incident made her feel "bad" and "scared," and that she never wanted to shop there again.

So her medical records from her doctor when she was diagnosed at the age of two weren't sufficient? And now Abercrombie is appealing the case? Abercrombie needs to get a clue. Not that I ever shopped there, but I hate them more now.

I think an apology would make sense in this situation.

I'm more disturbed that the word "discrimination" is getting tossed around in the first article.

Not to be inflammatory, but can you explain why you are disturbed that the author used the word discrimination in the article?

The employee was upholding a store policy. It wasn't as if she actively set out to prevent all autistic individuals from entering the store.

I agree that an apology would be a nice gesture, but calling the store and employee's actions "discrimination" goes too far. There's obviously a reason for those rules.

ETA: I'd say the same thing if the customers were black and the article tossed the word "racism" around.

Abercrombie's legal budget must be astronomical. They're always involved in some sort of discrimination-type dust-up. Everytime you turn around it is something new. Why it doesn't serve as worse PR for them, I don't know.

It's unfortunate but the reality is, your average A&F employee is probably about 17 years old, it's their first job, they're earning 50 cents an hour and they're probably told by Head Office, "Hey, don't let more than 1 person into the fitting room at a time" and are not empowered to make an "on the fly" judgement call for extraordinary situations like this one.

I think it is great that the people in your family were lower on the spectrum than this young woman, this CHILD, as described by her family was different, as many people with autism have varying degrees of it, and many people are effected in different ways. ... "Because of her autism, she's very vulnerable," Brittany said . "In social situations, everything is new to her. It's very unpredictable how she'll act. ... We've never left her alone, even at home. We never let her go anywhere by herself. We've always kept a close eye on her."

While it may not constitute discrimination, Abercrombie refused to make reasonable accomodations to allow the young woman assistance to try on the clothing. That is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. When they were notified of it, they failed to make accomodations, apologize and then subjected the child's diagnosis to scrutiny.

We don't know where this young lady was on the autism spectrum. We're reading an article.

None of the bolded translates to an inability to go into a dressing room by herself and try on her own clothes. There is a difference between family choice and what is a necessary condition under her form of autism. One thing that families dealing with disability have to understand is that not everywhere they go will understand the accomodations necessary; and there will be instances where they will have to let go of some of the less necessary accomodation requests.

That is probably where the debate came in. If the manager was smart she/he would've let it slide to avoid any conflict. Of course, that can lead to letting it slide for others who don't really have disabilities that prevent them from being in a dressing room by themselves.

But, it is what it is.

chains like that are evil anyway

Bear in mind that A&F hired the psychologist after a lawsuit had been initiated. I'm not defending them, just clarifying the context.

Actually, the second link in the OP is to a summary of the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact. I found this part interesting:

The assistant manager said he could not find a copy of the policy, but that they could not deviate from the one-person-per-fitting room policy. He apologized and offered to let the Maxsons buy as many items as they wanted, try them on at home, and then return the items that did not fit. He did not offer to let them use a fitting room.

At least from the ALJ's decision, it sounds like it was A&F corporate where the problem lay. The assistant manager was doing what he was told to do, but at least he did apologize.

^^I agree with DP. It's horrible that A&F employees don't have enough sense to know which battles to pick. They should've taken the family at their word and let it go. Requesting medical records was unnecessary and an interview with a psychologist was ludicrous. The "risk" of losing merchandise or a young woman's dignity--not really a hard choice.

However: "She was singled out and required to hear her sister and mother repeatedly ask for accommodations based on her disability, in front of a long line of customers, at a store that markets itself to young people as a purveyor of a particularly desirable 'look.'" Okay, I get it. But really was having your mother make a spectacle of you in a dressing room worth $115,000+ of humiliation? Was upholding a company policy without written proof that you should do otherwise (and not get canned if it turns out they stole something) really worth that much? They should've apologized as soon as they realized they'd made the mistake and it's good that they're investing in staff education, but I can't help but feel the punishment is ill-fitting.

ETA: And yes, I understand that the girl does not get that entire sum but even $25,000 seems over the top. I think DHS really just tried to hit them in the pockets to prove a point.

Again, they did not "request" medical records or "request" an interview with a psychologist. After the Minnesota Department of Human Rights sued A&F, A&F, in order to defend the lawsuit, hired a psychologist to evaluate the girl as part of the discovery process. From a litigation standpoint, that's not at all surprising or out of the ordinary. (Though why A&F let this get as far as litigation is beyond me.)

I don't mind A&F bashing, but it'd be nice to keep the bashing grounded in facts.

CJ, unfortunately, though you think an apology might be warranted, place that in context here. Mom is suing the company... so you would expect the company to just apologize and ADMIT guilt?

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.

Improv Everywhere gets a laugh at A&F's expense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdeBp8J0rqs

I love this!

Is this really an ADA issue?

Someone tossed that out earlier in the thread, but it doesn't seem to me to apply.

The state is certainly able to have a higher standard, of course.

I agree with Vandalsquirrel that there were much better ways to handle this. I'm not as sure as some of you that the autistic teen should be legally entitled to have assistance in the dressing room, but it certainly seems to me that a decent company would permit it.

That's part of the reason that I asked about whether or not autism is noticeable on sight. Someone claiming to need assistance (and the subsequent "bending of the rules") could create a loss for the company.

From my limited run-ins with people who have autism, it isn't very noticeable (like a deformity would be). Most of the people i've encountered have been either a little socially awkward, or just plain anti-social and "rude" (although I doubt they truly mean to be rude), but it's not like they have AUTISTIC tattooed on their forehead. I know many more non-autistic people that act those ways and they have no excuse for it.


I do agree that allowing them into the dressing room together, against company policy, would open up the "flood gates" and would invoke complaints from other patrons about allowing them in. Although I will say, the one-person policy is kind of dumb. When I was at Aeropostale, I had to be the "dressing room attendant" many a times. And although it was suggested that you only allow 1 person in the stall, most of the time it isn't feasible. Parents want to take their children in, or 2 friends don't want to wait in line for separate stalls, so they share one. I never had a problem with allowing more than 1 person in, because I counted how many articles of clothing they brought in (that was company policy, and policy for other stores as well) so I could tell if they left with fewer clothes. That was my job, whether I was at the dressing room, or not. To watch for "shrink." I would assume A&F had a similar policy, and if not, they should.

I never got the "but she/he is autistic, let us go in together" and personally had someone said that to me, I would have let them both in. It's not my place to judge whether the person is or isn't, but I would give the benefit of the doubt.

All I could think of was The Scarlet Letter. I knew there was I reason I had to read that lol

It might not be a good policy, but it's still policy. This is the main source of income for the employees, so bending the rules wouldn't really make sense.

And while I agree that it isn't our place to tell someone whether or not s/he has autism, I think adherence to company policy is paramount. Until the company changes things, we kinda have to deal with it.

Ehhhh, retail employees bend the rules alllll the time. Most of the time they'll pick and choose which rule to abide by and which to bend...and of course it fluctuates whenever the employees feel like changing it. As much as it's company policy, i'd like to see if they enforce their rules 100%. What about when the employee's friends come in? Do they enforce the rules for them, or bend them?

And really had this A&F worker bend the rules for this autistic girl, would it have gotten back to corporate? I doubt it.

By law all retail stores have to have stalls for the handicapped/disabled. Does Autism count? Cause we were always told that you have to make every allowance for the handicapped/disabled. If autism counted in that aspect, and one of the allowances was letting a friend/family member in with the autistic person, that would supersede company policy. Right, or am I way off base?

Ok, A&F didn't do that, my mistake. But regardless, it should've never come down to that. This whole situation went so much further than necessary that the fact that all this "evidence" had to be brought in was still ludicrous in that context.
I take it you meant CG? If not, sorry. But Mom didn't sue the company until they'd ignored her for however long and she got DHS involved. They could've rectified the situation before that (beyond asking them to spend however much money they may or may not have had at A&F clothing to take home, try on, and cart back) and then there's a good chance there would be no legal charges to which to admit guilt.

Again, autism varies so much from individual to individual -- that's why they call it a spectrum. Sometimes it is very noticeable, other times it's not. By the same token, it's not like every autistic kid would need to be accompanied to the dressing room. Just like the severity for every person is different, every person with autism has different needs and challenges.

And no, they don't mean to be rude.

Yes!

I work at Abercrombie & Fitch and I'm sorry, I don't care who you are, I cannot let more than one person into the fitting room at a time unless I want to be yelled at by a manager. My managers are kind of scary too - like super intimidating - and they follow company policy exactly, because they can lose their jobs if they don't. I do feel bad for the girl, but I don't think it's fair to blame this on the employee since the managers, district managers, etc. are constantly drilling the fitting room rule into our heads at work.
However, when the mother explained the disability situation to the manager, I think that should've been enough.

Agreed, but when you are expected to follow instructions to the letter and are not empowered to make judgement calls on the fly under threat of losing your job, you get hot messes like this one.

So, if you work there, do you know why this policy might exist?

Are they concerned about people (i.e. two men) having sex in the fitting rooms? I did notice that there is a strong motif of shirtless males prevailing throughout A&F - is it considered a "cruisey" type of place?

Where I live, we have Hollister and American Eagle, but no A&F. So when I go to Seattle, I go to A&F.

-------------

I remember 100 years ago, when A&F was more upscale, like a Polo Ralph Lauren type of shop. It also had weird stuff that you could buy, like stuff for playing cricket and elephant hunting or something like that. Trying to be like colonial India or something like that.