Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom Because She Doesn't Fit The "Look Policy"

by Yizuman 9 Replies latest social current

  • Yizuman
    Yizuman

    By hortense , 3:45 PM on Sat Jun 13 2009, 65,186 views

    Copy this whole post to another site

    Slurp cancel

    When I previously (and gleefully) wrote about the economic troubles that Abercrombie was having a few months back, I mentioned that my personal hatred for the store comes from the fact that one of the women I was in the intensive inpatient unit with during my treatment for anorexia was heavily recruited by the store just days before her hospitalization (she was incredibly underweight) because she had "the look" they wanted. Turns out that this horrific "look policy" doesn't just revolve around being stick-thin; according to Riam Dean, she was forced to work in the stockroom, as opposed to on the floor, at Abercrombie's London flagship store because her prosthetic arm didn't fit the company's attractiveness standards. You stay classy, Abercrombie!

    When Riam applied to the store, they took a photograph of her and gave her a handbook that listed the company's expectations, as far as physical appearance goes. According to the Daily Mail, the handbook "stipulates that staff must represent a 'natural, classic American style' and instructs them on everything from how to wear their hair (clean and natural) to how long they should wear their nails (a quarter of an inch past the end of the finger)." Apparently, Riam's prosthetic arm wasn't "natural" or "classic" enough for the store- they made her buy a cardigan to wear in order to hide her arms while working.

    The cardigan, however, wasn't enough to satisfy the Abercrombie team. As Riam recalls:

    "A worker from what they call the "visual team", people who are employed to go round making sure the shop and its staff look up to scratch, came up to me and demanded I take the cardigan off. I told her, yet again, that I had been given special permission to wear it. A few minutes later my manager came over to me and said: "I can't have you on the shop floor as you are breaking the Look Policy. Go to the stockroom immediately and I'll get someone to replace you. I pride myself on being quite a confident girl but I had never experienced prejudice like that before and it made me feel utterly worthless. Afterwards I telephoned the company's head office where a member of staff asked whether I was willing to work in the stockroom until the winter uniform arrived. That was the final straw. I just couldn't go back."

    She is now suing the company, which, by the way, already paid 2.2 million dollars to employees who felt that that the company was unfairly forcing them to buy Abercrombie's clothes in 2003. Oh, and did I mention they paid a 40 million dollar settlement in 2004, after being accused of discriminatory employment practices? Because they did! This is a company that continues to be called out for their sexist, racist, discriminatory practices, and by issuing half-ass apologies and paying off their accusers, they expect us to forget the nastiness at the core of this operation. Sadly, all of this only makes Riam's story as unsurprising as it is upsetting.

    Source: http://jezebel.com/5289492/abercrombie-banishes-girl-with-prosthetic-arm-to-storeroom-because-she-doesnt-fit-the-look-policy

  • babygirl75
    babygirl75

    I heard about this on the radio this morning. I think this story is very sad and unfair for this young lady. I admire her spirit of being confident with her disability at her young age, I'm sure it's not easy, and then for assholes like this company trying to bring her down because she doesn't have "the look". I'm sure they will pay big for their "look" policy.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    You gotta love the superficiality of our society.

  • bluecanary
    bluecanary

    Unfairly forcing employees to buy clothes? Reminds me of Sunday's Dilbert.

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    I don't think she should be treated any differently than any other employee of course.

    Having said that, why would employees be entitled to cash settlements because their employer required them to wear certain clothes? That is not illegal.

    At-will employers can require a lot from their employees unless it violates a law. Certainly requirements about hair, jewelry, and clothing are not illegal at all. They can even require you to donate part of your paycheck to a certain charity if they want.

    Rights are things that are protected by law, not just something subjective a person thinks is unfair.

  • Yizuman
    Yizuman

    And that's why I absolutely hate the At-will law.

    The bottom line employees gets screwed every single time they clock in to work.

    This At-will is a loophole for employers to discriminate employees based on how a person is supposed to look.

    I had a friend who wears a prosthetic arm and applied to work at Wal-Mart. The interviewer asked about his arm and he tells the interviewer that he has no problem with using his arm. The interviewer made a comment expressing his doubts about his ability to perform the job.

    He filed with EEOC and settled out of court for a large sums of money.

    I've had before ADA became law been discriminated because of my deafness on up to post ADA. The discrimination is unfortunantly is still there.

    Especially I was fired 2 years ago because my wife who is disabled (no legs) and is wheelchair ridden. My wife gotten into a terrible accident involving her wheelchair. She accidently ran over a curb by the mailbox and it fliiped her off of the wheelchair, crashing down on the pavement. She had a cracked left rotor cuff. A customer recognized my wife, ran to the store and notified me of my wife's current situation. I turned pale as I looked at my co-worker and she told me to close my lane and go.

    So I did and when I got there, the cops and ambulance was already there and gotten her back in her wheelchair. So at the time we didnt know she had a cracked left rotor cuff until we noticed she wasn't healing as fast as she should have been and had her MRIed. So the problem today is still there as it hasn't been yet addressed on account of her other health problems that popped up, so the issue had to be postponed.

    Anyway, my boss finds out that I took off in an emergency to see my wife and she fired me for leaving while still on the clock. The issue is still pending with EEOC.

    What a load of bullshit.

    In any rate, regarding to the article above, it's bullshit to force an employee to wear something that other employees don't have to wear, especially if he or she is forcing the employee to cover up who they truly are.

    What the idiots don't get it is that if other potential customers who have the same disability as she does and becomes enamored by what she wears that made her look good, the employee could potentially make a sale. So an extra dollar coming into the store would have helped.

    Lately, in retail business mostly, too many dumbass regional managers are making up what they believed to be "bright ideas" are usually people who don't have a college degree in business. Plus they're cheaper to hire than to actually hire some fresh out of college kid with an actual degree in business.

    Yiz

  • mraimondi
    mraimondi

    fuck them in the neck.

    no one deserves that abuse.

    hope she gets tons of cash and never has to work again :)

  • watson
    watson
    hope she gets tons of cash and never has to work again :)

    Bonus!!

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Hmmm, maybe Michael Moore should apply there then sue them because they said he doesn't have the look.

  • XJW4EVR
    XJW4EVR

    The only compnay worse than A&F is American Apparel. If you Google Dov Charney you will see that he is a perverted letch.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit