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

[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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by epchick

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?

Maybe I have a bias, since I didn't start working until I started college. No job = no food or partying. I made sure my friends knew that they wouldn't be getting special treatment if they came into my store.

And really had this A&F worker bend the rules for this autistic girl, would it have gotten back to corporate? I doubt it.

Back to corporate? No. Back to the store or regional/district manager? Maybe.

[christiangirl]

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.

Exactly. People do this all the time in arguments, even kids. "I'm so sorry for the way this all turned out and I wish it had been different." Read: "I refuse to apologize for any of the crap I did, but I don't want you to dropkick me into next week so I'll say this instead."

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Exactly. People do this all the time in arguments, even kids. "I'm so sorry for the way this all turned out and I wish it had been different." Read: "I refuse to apologize for any of the crap I did, but I don't want you to dropkick me into next week so I'll say this instead."

"We apologize that our employees followed our own rules and their training to the letter - while what the employee did violated the spirit of the rules, we do not expect our associates to be able to make a snap decision on something as subtle and complex as autism, and neither should you, hence why we make the rules black-and-white (hopefully that analogy does not violate any sort of Federal act). Next time, make sure the child has a visible handicap, so we can avoid all of this posturing and even our gray-collar staff can figure this out. Be safe, and wear pre-torn jeans. One love, Abercrombie and/or Fitch."

A&F doesn't exactly have a great reputation for handling litigation, but even I'm not entirely sure they should offer any sort of olive branch when their theory is that they did nothing wrong.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Exactly. People do this all the time in arguments, even kids. "I'm so sorry for the way this all turned out and I wish it had been different." Read: "I refuse to apologize for any of the crap I did, but I don't want you to dropkick me into next week so I'll say this instead."

But even that type of apology gets iffy, for the reasons discussed by Kevin, KSigRC and others. When you deal with litigation, you have to be VERY careful about what you say. Something that would seem like an obvious statement in other situations (like an argument between children) can take on a whole other importance in a litigation or pre-litigation situation.