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?