The Fashionable and Stylish have two arms
June 19, 2009 5:00 AM Subscribe
The 'looks policy' for staff at Abercrombie and Fitch has been much discussed in the media since their first UK store opened last year. Now a member of staff, who has worn a prosthetic arm since birth, is suing for discrimination [NB - Daily Mail link] claiming that her disability left her 'banished to the stockroom' as it 'didn't fit their public image'.
(I do remember reading that they were picky about who they let INTO the store too, but can't confirm this to be the case - nothing I've seen from there compels me to pay them a visit - it just looks like Gap with a mark-up to me.)
(I do remember reading that they were picky about who they let INTO the store too, but can't confirm this to be the case - nothing I've seen from there compels me to pay them a visit - it just looks like Gap with a mark-up to me.)
This post was deleted for the following reason: These links are probably better in the almost identical other thread. -- vacapinta
"I do remember reading that they were picky about who they let INTO the store too"..
that's quite a statement to make without some sort of verification or documentation..
That said... This is one of those stories which feels like there is another side to it...
We can all agree that discrimination against someone with a disability that doesn't impact on the ability to do the job is wrong...
Now, what else do we talk about here?
posted by HuronBob at 5:09 AM on June 19, 2009
that's quite a statement to make without some sort of verification or documentation..
That said... This is one of those stories which feels like there is another side to it...
We can all agree that discrimination against someone with a disability that doesn't impact on the ability to do the job is wrong...
Now, what else do we talk about here?
posted by HuronBob at 5:09 AM on June 19, 2009
Why is this only coming to light when AF shows up in the UK?
posted by DU at 5:12 AM on June 19, 2009
posted by DU at 5:12 AM on June 19, 2009
One of the advantages of having A&F in the UK now is that it provides easy identification of soulless fucks that I want nothing to do with. Now *that's* positive discrimination...
{Thanks for the DM warning. Essential labelling :-) From one of the comments on the DM article page: I was shocked to read that this type of discriminaton still exists. Really? You're reading the Daily Mail love.}
posted by i_cola at 5:18 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
{Thanks for the DM warning. Essential labelling :-) From one of the comments on the DM article page: I was shocked to read that this type of discriminaton still exists. Really? You're reading the Daily Mail love.}
posted by i_cola at 5:18 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Just seen t'other thread.
DU - when it came over, the media made a big fuss about their 'looks policy' as that sort of thing is very very rare here. I couldn't speak for the States. It's common for shop workers to buy their store's wares, but even Topshop, the most fashionable and on-trend UK store, employs people who are too big to fit into their largest size UK16 clothing.
posted by mippy at 5:19 AM on June 19, 2009
DU - when it came over, the media made a big fuss about their 'looks policy' as that sort of thing is very very rare here. I couldn't speak for the States. It's common for shop workers to buy their store's wares, but even Topshop, the most fashionable and on-trend UK store, employs people who are too big to fit into their largest size UK16 clothing.
posted by mippy at 5:19 AM on June 19, 2009
but even Topshop, the most fashionable and on-trend UK store
I'm guessing that fashion isn't one of your Mastermind specialist interests, mippy?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:21 AM on June 19, 2009
I'm guessing that fashion isn't one of your Mastermind specialist interests, mippy?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:21 AM on June 19, 2009
I thought "looks policy"s went out with miniskirts on stewardesses in the States, too (i.e. were illegal--obviously they are still secretly enforced to varying extents).
posted by DU at 5:25 AM on June 19, 2009
posted by DU at 5:25 AM on June 19, 2009
Why is this only coming to light when AF shows up in the UK?
It's been discussed for years, DU; the other thread linked this 2003 article.
posted by mediareport at 5:26 AM on June 19, 2009
It's been discussed for years, DU; the other thread linked this 2003 article.
posted by mediareport at 5:26 AM on June 19, 2009
In terms of the high street, I'd say it was. They copy catwalk pieces very quickly, including the 'directional' items that budget retailers steer clear of. Their flagship store gets 20,000 people through the store each day. They're one of the only, if not the only, high street retailers to show at London Fashion Week.
Of course, if you think I mean Bon Marche, feel free to disagree.
posted by mippy at 5:26 AM on June 19, 2009
Of course, if you think I mean Bon Marche, feel free to disagree.
posted by mippy at 5:26 AM on June 19, 2009
Sorry mippy, that came across as snarkier than I'd intended. For our non-British readers, TopShop is a high street store that specializes in doing extremely cheap knock-offs of the current hot fashion item -- cheap enough that pretty well every teenager who wants to can afford it.
So it's fashionable and on-trend, but completely lacking in the kind of exclusive connotations that some people might associate with fashion. People who shop at TopShop will regard Gap as being upmarket.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:28 AM on June 19, 2009
So it's fashionable and on-trend, but completely lacking in the kind of exclusive connotations that some people might associate with fashion. People who shop at TopShop will regard Gap as being upmarket.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:28 AM on June 19, 2009
I'm reading that looks policy and thinking: I've had bright red hair since I was sixteen. I can't wear heels (much) or flip-flops, or many non-trainer shoes. I never wear 'natural' make-up, and having a bust means any summer clothing automatically looks more provocative than intended. Oh, and I'm not skinny either.
I'm reminded of my dad telling me that if I got dyed hair or tattoos, I'd never find a job when I got older. (He also told me that when I left university, I could start out as a secretary and if I worked really hard could make my way up to being a PA.) I've worked in the media since my degree, in casual offices (except when I worked in news) and with colleagues who have tattoos, or a piercing, or coloured hair. I'm aware that not everyone does work in this environment, but when between jobs I went to a temp agency and was shocked to hear that I would be expected to wear heels to a job in the City. Not 'look smart', not 'keep your shoes neat'.
I walked home then with the feeling that I never wanted to work in a job that would require me to achieve conformity with my appearance to the extent that it would leave me unable to make choices about what I wanted to do in my out-of-work life. I might be lucky enough to work in an industry that isn't uniformed, and I have the luxury of making this choice, but adults should not be required to wear what is essentially school uniform.
posted by mippy at 5:33 AM on June 19, 2009
I'm reminded of my dad telling me that if I got dyed hair or tattoos, I'd never find a job when I got older. (He also told me that when I left university, I could start out as a secretary and if I worked really hard could make my way up to being a PA.) I've worked in the media since my degree, in casual offices (except when I worked in news) and with colleagues who have tattoos, or a piercing, or coloured hair. I'm aware that not everyone does work in this environment, but when between jobs I went to a temp agency and was shocked to hear that I would be expected to wear heels to a job in the City. Not 'look smart', not 'keep your shoes neat'.
I walked home then with the feeling that I never wanted to work in a job that would require me to achieve conformity with my appearance to the extent that it would leave me unable to make choices about what I wanted to do in my out-of-work life. I might be lucky enough to work in an industry that isn't uniformed, and I have the luxury of making this choice, but adults should not be required to wear what is essentially school uniform.
posted by mippy at 5:33 AM on June 19, 2009
So it's fashionable and on-trend, but completely lacking in the kind of exclusive connotations that some people might associate with fashion.
Abercrombie has always struck me as being for the nouveau riche.
Did you know that until the brand was remade in the late '80s, it was a sporting goods store? My friends was just telling me about how her dad went in there and got really weird looks when he asked where their guns were.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:35 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Abercrombie has always struck me as being for the nouveau riche.
Did you know that until the brand was remade in the late '80s, it was a sporting goods store? My friends was just telling me about how her dad went in there and got really weird looks when he asked where their guns were.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:35 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
TopShop is a high street store that specializes in doing extremely cheap knock-offs of the current hot fashion item -- cheap enough that pretty well every teenager who wants to can afford it...People who shop at TopShop will regard Gap as being upmarket.
Ten years ago yes, but this isn't the case. Primark have taken the cheaper end of the market and Topshop have raised their prices and changed their customer profile to suit. Average price of trousers - £40. Average price of a jumper - £28. This is not 'extremely cheap' in the same way Primark is. I agree that they aren't exclusive - of course they're mass market - but their clothing is getting featured in Vogue, stock changes mean things can sell out within a week, and they do limited ranges, like the Kate Moss one (one of her dresses I saw in the store was £400. Nothing in Topshop should be £400!)
posted by mippy at 5:36 AM on June 19, 2009
Ten years ago yes, but this isn't the case. Primark have taken the cheaper end of the market and Topshop have raised their prices and changed their customer profile to suit. Average price of trousers - £40. Average price of a jumper - £28. This is not 'extremely cheap' in the same way Primark is. I agree that they aren't exclusive - of course they're mass market - but their clothing is getting featured in Vogue, stock changes mean things can sell out within a week, and they do limited ranges, like the Kate Moss one (one of her dresses I saw in the store was £400. Nothing in Topshop should be £400!)
posted by mippy at 5:36 AM on June 19, 2009
Well For all I care they can have their model employees. For all I care they can put less attractive people in the back of the store. Their business, they can run it as they please. No need to sue them because they said someone was not good enough for the front of the store. It is not my place to say anything or tell them how to run their company.
AND why don't I care? Because I am not going to shop there. Plenty of other places sell things that are just as nice. If this story really upsets you then this is the best thing to do. Tell your friends to shop elsewhere if you are with them as well. They want to be snobs and act like more attractive people are better than everyone else then I guess average Joe cash isn't good enough for them either.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:38 AM on June 19, 2009
AND why don't I care? Because I am not going to shop there. Plenty of other places sell things that are just as nice. If this story really upsets you then this is the best thing to do. Tell your friends to shop elsewhere if you are with them as well. They want to be snobs and act like more attractive people are better than everyone else then I guess average Joe cash isn't good enough for them either.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:38 AM on June 19, 2009
Discrimination in the U.S. is only illegal if it's discrimination against members of a protected class. Unattractive people are not a protected class, so "looks policies" aren't illegal so long as they don't target members of a minority or some other protected class.
Of course, Disability status is a protected class, so in the U.S. at least she might have a case, just as some African Americans and other minorities were able to sue A&F for discrimination in the past.
posted by delmoi at 5:50 AM on June 19, 2009
Of course, Disability status is a protected class, so in the U.S. at least she might have a case, just as some African Americans and other minorities were able to sue A&F for discrimination in the past.
posted by delmoi at 5:50 AM on June 19, 2009
« Older Beck covers | American Verse Project Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I don't work in retail, and my fashion tastes aren't mainstream, but it is utterly and completely beyond me why an adult would want to work in a store with such a restrictive appearance policy. It goes far beyond uniform. I went to Catholic school - one which had rules on hair length and hair bobble colours - and that wasn't even that bad.
posted by mippy at 5:02 AM on June 19, 2009