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

[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.

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I don't even think they still are owned by the original company, so it's basically just some random mall brand.

Like I said earlier:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[grassisgreener]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Yep, they probably could have responded to one of her many letters using vague language to apologize, without being terribly specific and the mom probably would have been happy.

Even when customers are completely in the wrong, and the retailer has done nothing, most respectable companies will have some sort of polite response.

I understand that there are some people who are afraid to bend policy in fear of losing their jobs and I can see how that happened at the store level. But when a corporate office is so arrogant that they ignore their customers repeatedly, especially after having a history of discrimination, then they probably deserve what they got.

The mother made repeated attempts to contact them in different formats to give the company a chance BEFORE going to the department of human rights. If her intention was to sue all along, she probably would have called a lawyer that same day to file a civil suit. She didn't, and A&F should have taken that risk and responded at their first opportunity.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by grassisgreener

Yep, they probably could have responded to one of her many letters using vague language to apologize, without being terribly specific and the mom probably would have been happy.

Even when customers are completely in the wrong, and the retailer has done nothing, most respectable companies will have some sort of polite response.

I understand that there are some people who are afraid to bend policy in fear of losing their jobs and I can see how that happened at the store level. But when a corporate office is so arrogant that they ignore their customers repeatedly, especially after having a history of discrimination, then they probably deserve what they got.

The mother made repeated attempts to contact them in different formats to give the company a chance BEFORE going to the department of human rights. If her intention was to sue all along, she probably would have called a lawyer that same day to file a civil suit. She didn't, and A&F should have taken that risk and responded at their first opportunity.

Yeah, but...nothing about Abercrombie and Fitch stores give the vibe that they're polite or are a respectable company. It's mostly just suburban wannabes. I don't even think they still are owned by the original company, so it's basically just some random mall brand.

I feel bad for the little girl though. Now people will whisper and say things like "that's the abercrombie and fitch girl, omg"

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The main (and for years only) store was on Madison Ave., but they had a catalog as well.
...................
BTW, Hollister is a brand of A&F.

I did know that Hollister was the Old Navy to A&F's proverbial Gap / Banana Republic.

A&F was in Oakridge Mall in Vancouver, BC for many years also. Now that space is demolished and is a food court.