In particular, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (UK) and the Human Rights Act 1998. In addition, cases can go to the European Court of Human Rights.

Here's a sample recent case...
[www.mdac.info]

So... A&F clothes aren't in the Abercrombie style? What?

The story also said (yes said this time) that she was told to purchase a cardigan. Why wouldn't they just tell her to purchase something acceptable?

I worked in a mall one summer, and our deliveries door opened on to the same hallway as the A&F store's door.

One time, I saw three people coming out of the door. I'd never seen these people before (and I could recognize most of the jerks who worked in the front of the store from seeing them inside the mall (I usually left through the 'customer' entrance, rather than the back way)). I stopped them and said "Hey, what's going on, I've never seen you before..." and they were like "Oh, we all work here". Luckily one of the salespeople came out of the door right then, and I asked him if the three worked in the store, and he was like "Yeah, but they're the -back room- people".

It was a nice and pretty, but morbidly obese African American woman in her 40s, a pimply faced teenage boy, and then one girl who was rather average, brunette, and wore glasses.

Apparently the store manager's policy was that everyone had to leave the store (for lunch, smoke breaks, whatever) by the back door, but this policy was only enforced for the stockroom employees.

I don't personally agree with the look policy, but I can see why some places of business have it (thinking more along the lines of strip clubs/hooters/etc), but at least be f---ing humane about it.

I worked for A&F for one month in my Senior year of college (before quitting because of how horrible it was). While I wasn't fat, I wasn't super skinny either, and don't quite look like the models/heroin addicts in their ads. During the interview they told me there were no openings on the floor, and that they'd put me in the stockroom "until something opened up on the floor". After being there a little more than a week, some new workers started... on the floor. I got to talking with them and found out they interviewed a few days after me. However, they all were super skinny, white, blond and looked a lot like the models in the ads. No floor position was ever offered to me, as promised.

A&F was also sued shortly before that for their fascist uniform policy (CA law prohibits workers from being forced to pay for their own uniforms, unless they get some choice in what to buy). A&F required at the time that you wear only their clothing, and it had to be from the current season and non-sale items. And they only gave you 50% off on three items a season, plus 30% off everything else, while paying minimum wage (so all of your money went to clothes to wear to work). They also had charts in the back dictating which specific shoes you were allowed to wear, how to wear your hair/makeup, jewelry, etc.

youbastid: Props for your posts... I completely agree, though pointing that kind of thing out-even when you qualify with "Look, I don't agree with this, I'm just saying this is why companies do X"-inevitably brings out the "You bastard, you must hate ugly/fat/disabled people!! I bet you kick puppies too!!" Wish more people would read a basic consumer-psych book or two before starting in with the name-calling.

Therefore I won't shop at A&F. However I've been more than happy to shop at stores like American Eagle that might target the same market, but don't have such a shallow and disgusting mentality in their marketing. (as long as they have good sales :D)

@pecan 3.14159265: And a card with Tom Hanks yelling "Wilson!".

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Right - they put "those" employees in the stock rooms and offices!

@Nick1693: Cheaper solution - don't ;).

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,' she recalled.

'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." '

2) People should stop acting like they're lawyers about something that is obviously not cut and dry. And it is British law...

I used to work at a restaurant that made no bones about hiring attractive front-of-house staff. We had a wide range of ethnicities and ages, and I'm sure if the place hadn't had so many stairs, we'd have had some hot disabled folks too. The head host was this enormous woman with a beautiful face, impeccable hair, and a forceful, ebullient personality. When you've convinced everyone that you know who's good-looking, you're allowed to go out on a limb occasionally and expand everyone's horizons.

@korybing:

YOU LIE!! I know that if I just keep shopping there I will drop 80lbs in no time!

Hey im a white, blue-eyed, semi-good looking, 6'0 male with a BEER gut and if they denied me a job or put me in the back.. so what? do you really want to work at a place that thinks/does that to you?

My daughter and I were out shopping a few months ago and we went in there. She was 17 at the time. I happened to be looking right at him when the manager looked up, saw her, and bolted around the counter. We were out the door before he caught up. I honestly thought he thought she was a shoplifter, and I was getting my game face on. Instead he asked her if she wanted a job. She wasn't old enough, so she turned him down, but the whole thing was creepy. Really creepy. "Runaway girl at Grand Central accepting a ride from a guy in a Cadallac" creepy.

That would apply for some places. Hooters for instance. They settled the lawsuit and still don't have men as wait staff. All they did was create back of the house jobs for men.

However--to jump to a more general topic--it's not always a straightforward matter who is doing the perceiving. Sure, consumers don't act as logically as they think they do--but neither do corporations. That's why, despite marketing studies, things like New Coke and the Tropicana package get put on the shelves. I really doubt that A&F (pilloried by M. A. Anderson as, I believe, "Wetherby and Crotch") is doing this because they have proof that less focus on a narrowly conceived physical model will cost them revenue--I think it's such a deeply entrenched brand identity at this point that's it's an article of faith even more than an article of marketing research.

I wonder if there is something similar over there?

Probably not because their target demographic doesn't care. Also, they're not in violation having her work in the back as long as they're paying her the same and she's working the same hours so a lawsuit is not going to do anything.

If she could have taken off the sweater, bared her prosthetic arm and been in compliance with the uniform policy and allowed to work the front, that's a lot different than if they wouldn't allow her to work in the front of the store either way. One is discriminating against a person with a disability, the other is requiring your employees to follow your uniform policy, even if they don't like the uniform.

I understand that "we're all equal", however some things do require a particular appearance. Or would you find it completely reasonable that a movie studio be required to allow any person to play any role no matter their age, ethnicity, or appearance? And if it's ok for the movie studios to select actors based on their appearance, is it ok for a company to select actors for their commercials based on their appearance? And if that's ok, why isn't it ok for that company to extend their marketing campaign by selecting consumer-facing employees based on their appearance?

In order to survive working for Abercrombie, you really have to get over your self-esteem issues. I saw a few memos from corporate, and they actually GRADE how beautiful the people at the store are. My store got a 5/5 on 'beautiful girls', but only a 3/5 on guys. How do you think I felt being a 3/5? Not good, but I sucked it up. It's just a job.

I'm not complaining about the muscley manchest, but last I checked you can't get a six-pack by buying clothes at a store.

yes you are required to modify your codes for those particular things.

All she wanted was to wear long sleeves which wasn't against their code so again not a preference.

I am not defending AF. However, no where in the article does it state she was sent to the back because she was missing an arm. It appears she was sent to the back because she wasn't wearing the store issued uniform of a polo shirt. She was wearing a long sleeve cardigan sweater that she was apparently given permission to where by her manager. When someone from the "visual team" said she could not wear it, she refused to take it off (based on prior permission from her manager). She was sent to work in the back for violating the "Look Policy", not because she was missing an arm. I'm not sure AF would lose a lawsuit based on this. Was she sent to the back because she was disabled? No, she was sent to the back for violating a policy. I violation that was prompted by her desire to hide the joint between her arm and her prostetic. It is a very fine line. AF could have shown a little compassion here and worked with her to understand why she was wearing long sleeves, but I don't think compassion is in the AF handbook.

@BennyMigrationWitness_GitEmSteveDave: I knew someone who called if Ambercrombie & Finch. It made my ears bleed.

Hold on. Where in there was she told it was because of her prosthetic limb? It sounds like it's because she refused to take off the cardigan. She can't wear a short-sleeved shirt instead?

@JGBrock:

Ruehl is more for that look now... the "adult" A&F.

Basically they have it set out like this...

Abercrombie: Ages 8-12
Hollister: Ages 13-17
Abercrombie & Fitch: Ages 18-22
Ruehl: Ages 23-29

I guess after 29 you are just too old ;)

@tinyhands:

I still wear A&F clothes (mostly jackets) that I bought in 7th grade. I'm now 23. Oh, and they still look good and are in phenomenal condition.

Second, IF the law requires "reasonable accommodation" (and I don't know if UK law so requires)how big a deal is it to permit the young woman to wear a sweater, maybe even an A&F sweater that would spur sales?

Third, she appeared for an interview. While she's attractive, was the interviewer blind or just didn't notice the prosthetic arm?

Last, maybe she could convince her law school to do a pro bono class action against A&F to stop this nonsense. The employment tribunals in the UK have some pretty broad powers.

I worked between A&F, Abercrombie Kids and Hollister for 3 years. Seriously, best job(s) I have ever had. Laid back and fun environment... and I met some of my best friends through the company. Don't knock it 'til you try it ;)

Anyway, I agree with the uniform thing. Now the question is, did she get sent to the back for having a prostetic arm or for not wearing the uniform? Hell, even at Target you are told to go home if you don't wear the uniform (red and kaki) so why should this be any different? Oh and to the person who asked if everyone adheres to the look policy (like the CEO, etc.), the answer is yes, EVERYONE does.

There's more to this story - making someone go to the back over a sweater just doesn't jive.

1) They hire as Models. These people are hired as a model and thus allowed to be based solely on appearance. They are there to look pretty

2)workers/stock room, these ones work in back and hand off things to the front people. They get paid less, and less discount, and generally are not allowed up front.

It depends what she was hired as...

What I'd like to know is whether she asked if she could wear a long-sleeve t-shirt under her polo, which fits with the Abercrombie "look" (at least for men)

@spanky:

Did you notice he's wearing woman's sandals? Or at least they look like that. Sort of like an effeminant gary busey (sp?).

Well models and actors are chosen for positions based on how hot they are. I mean uh... if A&F as a company chooses physical visual appeal of people as a criterion for who gets to work out in front, in view of customers, how is that any different from a warehouse choosing the physical lifting ability of a person who has to lift boxes of junk and move them from point A to point B?

I don't like the idea of people being wrongfully discriminated against, but not everybody is cut out for every job. You can't be ANYTHING. You can only be what you have the physical capacity to be.

You know, for the lulz.

@Jacquilynne:

I read about this elsewhere.... it was much clearer...

She was given permission to wear the cardigan. She was doing so and was told to take it off. She told the manager telling her to do so that she had special permission to wear it. She was then sent to the back room b/c of violating policy. That was the story I read.

It's hard to make the call whether this is legal or not... whether it's true discrimination b/c of her prostetic arm, but it certainly seems and feels that way. It won't really matter in the long run, though... A&F will just pay her a hefty settlement to STFU and move along on their merry-white-bread way....

/puke

People who fit in and have a lot of friends are comfortable with themselves in any brand of clothing, and they wear Abercrombie as just another clothing brand.

Anyways I don't fit their image and I wouldn't want to fit their image nor do I need to. Not fitting their image means I don't have to buy horribly overpriced clothing at a store that smells like crap and makes my allergies go berzerk.

@DefineStatutory: Agreed - this is disgusting. Chances are A&F is trying to use the BFOQ (bonafide occupation qualification) defense.

Basically the BFOQ comes into play in such situations to where you don't have to hire someone who is confined to a wheelchair to be a stockperson - when something requires lifting to shelves that are above height level. Now that example is a *physical* requirement...what we are dealing with here is some type of BFOQ that requires a *visual* requirement.

Chances are A&F is going to lose this case, and they're going to lose big.

A friend of mine with one leg and a prosthetic got more tail than anybody else I knew, and he totally had to take the leg off before he could get it on. It was part of the foreplay.

So what was the point again about prosthetics being unsexy?

It sounds from the article as though the employee has issues with her prosthetic arm being visible to the public, not that Abercrombie & Fitch has that problem. Working at a store where you know *in advance* that you will be required to dress a certain way and then complaining about it is like going to work as a waitress at Hooters and then complaining because they asked you to wear a tight t-shirt. Most if not all retail outlets have standard dress requirements; if you don't like the requirement, don't take the job there.

Having said that, A&F does have an unpleasant history of treating minority workers improperly (hint: skin color is irrelevant to a dress code), so I can see where the media would feel this story is a good one to run with.

it could be as if someone got approval to wear a red sweater instead of red shirt at target but showed up in a red mesh see-thru sweater.

@dorianh49: I suppose I wasn't clear: I wasn't defending the practice. Not that I'd have ever shopped at A&F anyway...

I appreciate her not wanting to put it out there for the world to see, but she did take a job where there's a dress code (more or less). She thought she had a special exception to that, but getting offended when it turns out she didn't strikes me as a little off, but I'm not disabled in any way, so what do I know?

But going back to the article - why would you shove someone to the backroom for wanting to wear a cardigan? Wouldn't it be reasonable to demand they not wear it? It seems like the article is hiding or shading some details.

Of course, if your store employs topless men, you probably have more serious image issues than a girl wearing a sweater...

The title of the article needs to be changed. She was sent to the stockroom because of dress policy, not because she has a prostetic arm.

Did anyone at any time say "You have a prostetic arm and that doesn't fit with our look policy"? if not, then change the article title.

@kemikos: Seriously... the Ocean's Thirteen school of thought. Ich.

@Juliekins: My thoughts exactly. The old man wattle definitely did me in. I'll never walk past a A&F store again without seeing this in my head. Ugh.

@youbastid:

True, so if your boss tells you tomorrow that you have a prosthetic arm, and get to work in the basement, that's okay? right? Because it's not like they took your job away. Shoot, we should just round up the cripples and make em work in dark rooms someplace so that us able people don't have to look at em. As long as they have jobs, they don't need dignity.

He looks like Rocky Dennis in flip-flops.

@kemikos:

I was wondering when someone would throw out the obvious parallel. Its essentially the same thing. You can decide that only the prety employees can work in sales/waiting the tables, and keep the less desireables in the back. There's no law against that.

However, if Hooters decided to can a hot chick with one leg, there's an issue.

That's how they're treating their NON-disabled employees, isn't it?

@henwy:
"They're not waitresses... They're models who serve."

A friend of mine worked for Hollister when she was in HS. She got paid to stand around and "hang out." Literally. that was her job, to make the place look like a cool place to be. Overweight people and the "less hip" were relegated to the stockroom. I don't shop at any of these places but they have spent much $$$ to research the spending habits of their demographic.

@Christopher Wilson: Actually, Hollister is a different brand from the same company. Hollister is owned by A&F.

@mmmsoap: you mean people who were as digitally manipulated and fake as any other model?

[www.businessweek.com]

Yeah, truly inspiring all right.

I dont see anything about it being a problem with her arm, it was a problem with her dress.

I see no problem with requiring employees to dress a certain way, some places have uniforms (and this includes hair/ail style) others have a really strict dress code.

I wonder if they'd pass OSHA requirements with all of the noise and lack of breathable air

At least now she won't have to worry about gagging on all that cologne they spray in the stores.

For $40 million I'll cut off one arm. Wait, no...

"Miss Dean, who normally wears long-sleeved tops to disguise the join between her upper arm and artificial limb, says she was told to buy a plain white cardigan to wear over her uniform."

The cardigan was used to cover the joint. It's ambiguous as to whether the store wanted her to buy the cardigan to cover her arm or if the store wanted her to get a white cardigan to match their "American style" in an effort to accommodate her need to cover the joint between her arm

I walk into a store and pretty much say "no thanks" to everyone who asks me if I need help finding something. I only talk to a person if I need a different size or want to know if something is in stock. I usually don't take advice from sales people and I really don't care whether they're attractive or not cause my decisions aren't based on them. They work there, they get stuff. It's not like I get a discount if I tell the cashier up front who helped me the most.

This is sort of why the Dove campaign was generally a hit. It was pretty nice to see people who looked like me being represented for once.

No sympathy here.

/haven't been interested in A&F since they stopped being a store for outfitting adventure outings and started becoming a purveyor of child pr0n.

I *do* feel it is reasonable and that A&F should acquiess. However, I do not feel that it is a need, and I can't really blame AF for not giving in.

No, you THINK you don't. PLenty of studies have shown otherwise that it affects most people whether the person trying to sell them crap is attractive or of the same sex or whatever. Businesses don't do this on a lark. It's been proven time and time again.

I can totally see where they're coming from on this one too. They should just call their sales/floor people sales/models and get around this problem. No one would bitch about models being judged on appearance, it's part of their job. It's clear that A&F is pretty much trying to do the same thing with their front of the house staff.

@SabreDC: Ok, I was taken in by the sensationalist headline of this story. After careful scrutiny, I have to agree with your assessment.

I still assert, however, that it was very shortsighted of this "visual team" member and company policy as a whole to not make an exception for this woman. I say this because I believe this kind of bad PR can be very costly to a company's sales. Especially given that A&F has had problems in the past with this whole salespeople's image thing.

@pecan 3.14159265: I agree with you on that. I think it was rotten to give her permission and then act like they never did. Perhaps it would have been a better move to give her a discount or at least a recommendation on an A&F sweater that would cover her arms. I have no issue with any of that; I just have an issue with the way this site writes stories acting as though the store said "You have a fake arm; go to the stockroom because it doesn't look good!"

So you think it's only okay to employ the hot disabled people out front and it's okay to keep the ugly ones in the back?

That's a sight I wish upon no one.

"As far as Jeffries is concerned, America's unattractive, overweight or otherwise undesirable teens can shop elsewhere. "In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids," he says. "Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don't alienate anybody, but you don't excite anybody, either."

I figure that people with disabilities are almost certainly among such "undesirables." Stuff like this is why I've never even set foot in a Hollister or A&F store in my life, and don't ever plan on it.

If she feels she should hide her disability, perhaps she is not suited for sales, or if sales, perhaps she should look in to telemarketing.

I hate to be so blunt about it, but it is what it is.

I can remember back in the day when that was not a bad store. You could actually find things in there that an adult would wear. Now, if you go in there for, oh..say a pair of shorts, all they have look like cutoffs. Where the actual cutting was done with a sharp rock.

When did the "I was in a plane wreck six weeks ago, thank god you found me!" look become fashion?

"She was also given a uniform of jeans and a polo shirt, although the company handbook does state that sales associates can wear their own clothing as long as it is in 'Abercrombie style'.

Miss Dean, who normally wears long-sleeved tops to disguise the join between her upper arm and artificial limb, says she was told to buy a plain white cardigan to wear over her uniform."

It does seem a little unclear whether the people involved actually knew that she had a prosthetic arm, or if they just assumed she was being insubordinate wrt the dress code.

Exactly.

Consumerist wants to have a discussion about whether or not a person's self esteem should be considered when making accomidations with those with disabilities? FINE. (side note, no, self esteem should not be considered, you're a big girl, get over it).

Consumerist wants to blow a story out of proportion and basically lie in order to create an attention grabbing headline? I take issue with that, and I think it damages their credibility.

Seriously, the Consumerist is one messed up website. NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE is it cited that the prosthetic arm is the reason she was put in the backroom. She is in the backroom because she was not meeting dress code. THAT'S IT.

Consumerist, get the f**k over it.

@YamiNoSenshi: The story here being in the UK, and the ADA being an American law, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the young woman doesn't have the same level of legal protection Americans have come to take for granted. Disability rights and public accommodations for the disabled are areas where the US is, generally speaking, far more enlightened than the EU.

I can't even go near that store, it just spawns douchebag if you even go near it.

So technically, she was sent to the back because of violating the Look Policy, but she had permission to violate it (so she wasn't violating the policy at all) and she only did so because she preferred to cover up her prosthetic arm.

If she was banished to the stockroom because she wouldn't wear the uniform, but they'd have been fine with the prosthetic arm showing to the public, then they are kind of lame, but not really douchey, and seem to have less issues with her body than she does.

If they originally told her to wear the cardigan not because she's uncomfortable baring her arm, but because they didn't want it showing to the public, and now they won't accept the cardigan, either, then they are massively douchey and deserve whatever abuse can be heaped upon them.

Fake arm? Into the stockroom with you! This is an unacceptable kind of fake.

The store manager overstepped his/her bounds by overriding the corporate policy and allowing a sweater to be worn. Someone from corporate came in and laid down the law.

I cannot blame A&F for wanting a standard look on their employees. Further, the ADA act requires companies to make reasonable allowances for people who's disabilities interfere with the job. This is not an issue of an artificial limb interfering with a job. This is an issue with someone's self consciousness about their artificial limb interfering with their ability to follow store policy.

I generally agree with consumerist in many of their stories, but they are in the wrong on this one and quite frankly should be ashamed of the sensationalist, misleading headline.

A person with a missing arm is not going to help sell clothes? How many people would notice right away that her arm was missing anyway? In any case, there is no reason for A&F to deny her a job because of something she can't change.

I would put a HUGE fat chick at the front of a restaurant wearing a t-shirt that says, "Hell, yes the food is THAT good."

[www.salon.com]

Yep. That's their arbiter of taste. Their embodiment of style. The apex of cool in the A&F universe.

I see Abercrombie and Fitch, I see someone trying really hard to be that guy.

And I point. And I laugh.

Once again, this site gives a misleading headline. She wasn't put into the stockroom because of her disability. She was put there because of what she was wearing. I understand that she received prior approval to wear the sweater that she was wearing and I agree that she should be allowed to wear it. However, why does this site insist on sensationalizing stories?

She was asked to remove her cardigan as it didn't fit in with the store's policy. Just like a Wal-Mart worker has to wear their blue smock (what would happen if they came to work wearing Target red? They'd be asked to remove it), this store has a policy about the appearance of the employee. I don't disagree with that policy; they should be able to dictate what you wear. Would the store have said "Go back in the stock room" if the employee removed her cardigan to reveal a prosthetic arm? Maybe, maybe not.... but that's not what happened. She was asked to leave based on her clothing.

@youbastid: Take a look at the Daily Mail article where this story was sourced. The woman is not unattractive.

I suspect in the big picture, A&F will lose more sales from this rotten story than what would have been lost from customers refusing to patronize a store that employs a woman with one arm.

Stupid stupid stupid stupid...

But, then again, who is surprised?

Hey, didn't New Kids on the Block have a bunch of hits?

Guys that shop there deserve to be charged for looking like the gay men they pretend they're not.

@lpranal:

Yes and no. Our school's jocks just weren't that interested in fashion. But the attitude is similar.

I think of David Bowie's 'I'm Afraid of Americans' whenever I walk by one of their creepy stores.

@yukonrye:
You are destined to lose a limb.

And has all of the belly-shirt miniskirt giggly cheerleaders hanging off his biceps.

Come on. The ADA is sooooo 1990's.

@lpranal:
Yep, the one who throws tater tots at you during lunch.

Interesting that even in the UK, they still want to portray the "American Look."

in unrelated news, GET OFF MAH LAWN

Get in the back, cripple...we can't have people like you in our store!

In this day and age, that sort of thinking is just undefendable, and makes me sick.

I think you have to be a half naked little boy to work there.

I think guys that shop there should hand in their "man card". They can get a free skin treatment as a reward.