Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
