Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

[SHO]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

This lawsuit is going to cost Abercrombie an arm and a leg.

[Whitesox]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

I think this is terrible. I also hope that she gets every penny.

[deaduck]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

I'm no lawyer but didn't the girl quit because she couldn't work the "floor".

And while I recognize the mean spirt of the action taken....as far as the story states they didn't reduce her pay or hours. Just reassigned her until the winter catalog/line shipped.

Not hiring her at all would have been discrimination, deciding after the fact she was not what you wanted in a position and reassigning her...not quite the same thing.

That said, I'm sure she gets a chunk of change from it because of just how these things tend to work out in court.

[ryan36]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

who the HELL really ships at this store anywho, I thought it was a fake store imagined by a bunch of stuck up girlyboys.

Metro, Homo, and some Trans...sexuals. And some hot f'ing girls.

[ryan36]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

Not hiring her at all would have been discrimination, deciding after the fact she was not what you wanted in a position and reassigning her...not quite the same thing.

That said, I'm sure she gets a chunk of change from it because of just how these things tend to work out in court.

Well, as far as the discrimination thing, it'd be hard to prove why you never hired someone. And yes, she should get a chunk of change. Being fired because "you're too ugly," is just pathetic.

[Sandman42]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

Not surprised that Abercrombie would pull something like this. They instruct their employees to act snobby towards others, especially those that don't fit their "image".

[Misfit]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

I'm no lawyer but didn't the girl quit because she couldn't work the "floor".

And while I recognize the mean spirt of the action taken....as far as the story states they didn't reduce her pay or hours. Just reassigned her until the winter catalog/line shipped.

Not hiring her at all would have been discrimination, deciding after the fact she was not what you wanted in a position and reassigning her...not quite the same thing.

That said, I'm sure she gets a chunk of change from it because of just how these things tend to work out in court.

They may have gotten away with it if they had not told her why she was being banished to the back room. It would be like my employer switching me to janitor duties without cutting my pay because of how I look.

It's up to the people who run the business to run it how they want. If they don't want someone working on the the floor because of how she looks, then fine - whatever. At least she has a job doing something there. If she doesn't like it - then quit and work somewhere else.

While I think it's pathetic and sad they would have such a policy to that extent (I'm not opposed to having clean looking workers, just going overboard) for how people on the floor have to look, it's their right to do so - and if she doesn't fit the policy, then she shouldn't expect to be working there.

The company has limited control over this kind of thing. The company can devise a dress code and establish other guidelines for hygiene and visible tatoos but a company cannot deny employment to someone because of a physical handicap unless the handicap prevents that person from doing the job (a blind person probably wouldn't make a good crossing guard, for example). Unless her prosthetic arm is a physical impediment to working the floor (which it probably isn't) then the company cannot deny her employment or deny her a position she is qualified for (which is the case here). The company could have avoided this by not hiring her as the job does not require a special skillset so turning her down can be spun in many ways. Or they could have asked to move to the storeroom under a different guise, though I wonder if her disability would actually be more of a hindrance in a storeroom so Abercrombie may have been screwed either way. This also took place in London and I have no idea what their laws are in regards to employee discimination, I'm just assuming they're the same as they are in the US.

Count me among those who have never shopped at this store, and this story (among other things) gives me a reason to never do so.

[CMH]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

She's probably gonna win something because of Abercrombie's history, but did anyone actually tell her that she couldn't work the front because of her arm?

She says that the manager stated she was breaking the look policy. Just prior to that, an employee in charge of the look policy had instructed her to remove her cardigan. She stated she was given special permission to wear it. So, she did not grant their wish. Manager comes out and says she has to work the back room because she's breaking the look policy. The way this story is broken down, that manager can argue quite successfully that wearing a cardigan was breaking the look policy - and I'm sure that it was breaking it.

Why didn't the girl just take off the cardigan?

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

Why didn't the girl just take off the cardigan?

"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."

They told her to wear it. Then some other idiot decide she was breaking the "look policy" because of the cardigan. If she takes it off, then she's back to being the girl with the prosthetic arm, which apparently isn't acceptable to them either. They deserve every bit of this.

[mgoblue]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

I agree with all the hate on Abercrombie, but I don't want to see a day and age where all the Hooters girls are 500 lbs because the law says Hooters has to hire them...It's not cool when your gunt sticks out farther than your chest.

It's kinda dumb to send the prosthetic arm girl in back to lift boxes though...This really could have been a non issue, but Abercrombie didn't handle things right.

[deaduck]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

The company has limited control over this kind of thing. The company can devise a dress code and establish other guidelines for hygiene and visible tatoos but a company cannot deny employment to someone because of a physical handicap unless the handicap prevents that person from doing the job

Trust me I'm not on Abercrombie's side but if they show her apperance/handicap affected their sales or clients, they are not technically wrong to reassign her.

And the more pressing question...If being moved to the stockroom from the floor was in the girls mind worth suing for whatever amount (which I'm sure is insane), what makes you think she'd have just sued for not getting the job in the first place?

[CMH]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

"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."

They told her to wear it. Then some other idiot decide she was breaking the "look policy" because of the cardigan. If she takes it off, then she's back to being the girl with the prosthetic arm, which apparently isn't acceptable to them either. They deserve every bit of this.

That's a conflicting story.

They either:

A. Told her to wear it or
B. Gave her permission to wear it.

She states that she told this dress code employee that she had permission to wear the cardigan. But then she also states that she was told to wear it because of the prosthetic arm. Which is it?

Because if the guy told her to take it off and she didn't want to wear it (because she was forced to wear it) then she should have taken it off. Instead, she chooses not to take it off and quits the job for being sent to the stock room.

I'm not saying Abercrombie is right here. I'm not choosing a side because I think the girl is leaving out information in her story - or the quote is not covering enough of the article.

It really seems to me that the girl was already concerned about her arm and wanted to wear the cardigan to appear approachable at work. Otherwise, why ask for permission to wear the cardigan?

[raidersbball20]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

i hate abercrombie, I go in there sometimes and I am in disgust by how people think because they are good looking that they are better than you. The thing is that most of them are stupid and I remind myself that I am going to make it in life better than they ever will

[Acid]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

I agree with all the hate on Abercrombie, but I don't want to see a day and age where all the Hooters girls are 500 lbs because the law says Hooters has to hire them...It's not cool when your gunt sticks out farther than your chest.

I hope you mean gut and not ****.

[pfunk880]

Re: Abercrombie "Banishes" Girl With Prosthetic Arm To Storeroom

I hope you mean gut and not ****.

Oh my... I skimmed right past that when I read the post.