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

[Jhawkalum]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Jhawkalum

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.

[kddani]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jhawkalum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I don't see how this really constitutes discrimination and warrants more than an apology and a review of company policy regarding fitting rooms. Discrimination is based on outcome and not intent, but even the discriminatory outcome is questionable. Is it an absolute fact that she couldn't have tried on her clothes alone; and if she couldn't, is that because of the autism versus her family failing to teach her how to try on her own clothes?

Of the autistic people in my family and friend's family, all of them could try on their own clothes by the time they were 14 and walk out the dressing room to show it to whomever needs to see it. They may've needed someone to primp them and adjust the clothing, but it would be tried on. (This is with the assumption that the store policy did not prevent people from showing their tried on clothes to someone.)

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Jhawkalum

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."

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.