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

[PeppyGPhiB]

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

I love this!

[UGAalum94]

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

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

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.

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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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?

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

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.

[qbt1990]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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.

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.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by qbt1990

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.

[qbt1990]

^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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.