A Federal Judge schools Abercrombie and Fitch on its hiring practices

Those of you who follow along here might remember this post, from a few months ago, about the whole kerfluffle over Abercrombie and Fitch's "look policy", and how discriminatory their hiring and sizing policies are. You might also remember this follow-up post I wrote a few days later, where I discussed how some people were fighting back against A&F's exclusionary policies.

Well, the clothing retailer has now been ruled against by a federal court after being sued by Umme-Hani Khan, a Muslim employee in California after she was asked to remove her headscarf, which she wears out of religious conviction, and who was fired when she refused to comply.A
there
US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzales, in ruling on the case, was quoted in an article online at NBC's website that by acting as it did, jurors could reasonably determine that "by offering Khan one option – to remove her hijab despite her religious beliefs – Abercrombie acted with malice, reckless indifference..." A&F was ordered by the judge to pay damages to Khan.

At the time that Khan's case first came to the attention of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the article reports, that agency was already looking at two similar cases, another from Northern California and one from Oklahoma, in which two other Muslim women had been refused jobs because they would not take off their headscarves.

Abercrombie and Fitch has said that they don't discriminate, but according to the article, they have also claimed that their employees are "living advertisements" and that they should be allowed to control what the employees wear because they are exercising their protected commercial speech. A&F has claimed that their employees represent an "aspirational lifestyle" - whatever that is - and that they are part of the "atmosphere" of the store.

The really unbelievable thing about all of this is that, in the article, a "brand consultant" (sorry for all the quotation marks here, but I don't know how else to deal with the attitudes represented by the use of some of these terms) named Rob Frankel defended A&F's policy stand by saying that in enforcing their employee dress code, the company is not violating anyone's rights, but instead is simply "creating brand consistency."

So, Frankel is saying, as far as I can see, that employees are nothing more than walking, talking, money-making (for the company) mannequins that the company should be able to do with as they wish. I mean, I know that some corporations seem to believe that once someone goes to work for them, that the company owns them and all, but this...this strikes me as only just short of serfdom. Yeah, the employee can walk if they don't like doing what they're told. But, in this economy, how does someone walk off a job with no certainty that they'll be able to find another one in a reasonable length of time?

I don't know. Maybe A&F felt that there would be no push-back on this because the employees in question were Muslim women. I'm glad that they were wrong, and that the court ruled in favor of Khan and her headscarf. Because, you know, despite appearances to the contrary sometimes, we have a tradition of religious freedom in the United States that should not be marginalized in the name of the almighty dollar.

Yeah. I know. I am, apparently, not a good capitalist. Still, what kind of company considers it's human resources - its employees - nothing more than living advertisements?

Not one I'd be interested in buying from.

Just a word to the corporate overlords at Abercrombie and Fitch: Capitalism works all kinds of ways, and one of those ways is that if you offend too many people, you aren't going to pull in business. Instead, you'll be out of business.

And the controversy continues...

Since I wrote this on Friday, I've continued to think about the situation with Abercrombie and Fitch and it's CEO, Mike Jeffries. I know, I've been wasting time that could be spent on other, more productive, things. It's just that stuff like this bothers me.

I've been especially thinking about Jeffries's comment that A&F goes after "the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends."

You know who he means, don't you? He's going after the "richies" in "Pretty in Pink" (if you haven't seen it, or haven't seen it in awhile and don't quite remember who the richies were and what they stood for, go watch it again), the kids who feel entitled to pass through school and life on their good looks alone, who don't believe they actually have to study or work for their grades and their money because, "Dude who has time to study or work when we've, like, got all this partying to do."

Yeah. Starting to remember them, aren't you? Every high school has them, and every college, too. At least every one I've ever been exposed to.

At least, I'm not the only one who is still thinking about this. I ran across an L.A. Times column this morning that addresses this issue. Apparently some people are sending the clothes they bought for themselves or their teenagers back with the message that they won't be shopping at A&F again. Others are calling Jeffries comments about those who don't fit into his definition of beautiful (young, thin) "bullying".

Some people have also started a petition calling on A&F to start stocking larger sizes. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm not generally in favor of boycotts, but in this case I think what is needed is for more people to stay to Abercrombie & Fitch, and to Jeffries, something along the lines of "I don't care if you start stocking every size imaginable, I will never, ever spend a dime in your stores again."

You see, the thing is, even if they start making and stocking all sizes, they've already stuck their foot in it and revealed their true feelings about those of us who aren't now and never have been "the cool kids". They might start marketing to a wider demographic, but they'll still be making the comments. They'll still be coming off as the haters they so clearly are. If they start selling larger-sized clothing, they'll be doing it for the money and the positive publicity, not because they've suddenly become more sensitive, caring people.

They would be doing it for the bottom line. And they might have to do it for the bottom line. According to the L.A. Times reporting, A&F has been underperforming for years, with stock prices down 20 percent since 2006 and one investments expert is quoted as saying that "the brand is probably ruined." The bloom is, apparently, off the rose, despite some of the comments I reported Friday from people who have called Jeffries a "brilliant visionary." Others, it seems, are starting to say, "Well, not so much."

Okay. I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about Abercrombie and Fitch or about Mike Jeffries. He's like the richies I was talking about earlier. He wants people to think about him, wants them to want to emulate him. Like them, he doesn't deserve that.