Employers should embrace this mantra - “Beauty Lies In
Diversity,” and not run from it. It may sound
“politically correct,” which to some is anathema, but
it will prevent many claims of discrimination, and as studies tell
us, it is good for business!
On July 29, 2011, we reported on an Oklahoma jury which awarded
$20,000 in damages in a religious discrimination case against
Abercrombie & Fitch (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch) where a Muslim
job applicant was refused hiring when she appeared for an interview
wearing a religiously-required headscarf. Abercrombie argued that
the scarf violated its strict "look" policy, which was in
implemented to insure a unified "preppy" brand image.
Abercrombie & Fitch has once again been hauled into court
because of its “look” policy – this time in
London and this time accused of disability discrimination. A
law student with a prosthetic arm alleges that she was removed from
the shop floor and "hidden" as a sales assistant in a
stockroom when she refused to remove her cardigan which she wore to
cover her prosthetic arm.
As reported in the The Guardian, the “‘look"
policy stipulates that all employees ‘represent Abercrombie
& Fitch with natural, classic American style consistent with
the company's brand’ and ‘look great while
exhibiting individuality.’ Workers must wear a ‘clean,
natural, classic hairstyle’ and have nails which extend
‘no more than a quarter inch beyond the tip of the
The employee claims that “A female A&F manager used
the 'look policy' and the wearing of the cardigan as an
excuse to hide me away in the stockroom. I knew then that I was
being treated different and unfairly because of my disability. Her
words pierced right through the armour of 20 years of building up
personal confidence about me as a person, and that I am much more
than a girl with only one arm. … "
"Abercrombie taught me that beauty lies in perfection, but
I would tell them that beauty lies in diversity.”
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It is rare these days for a California appellate court to weigh in on whether an
employer is vicariously liable for accidents involving an employee that occur
during the employee’s commute to and from work.
We were happy yesterday to refer readers to a great treatise by our friend, Ellen Pinkos Cobb, Esq., entitled "Bullying, Violence, Harassment, Discrimination and Stress" which she updated for 2014. As a number of clamoring readers reminded us, we forgot to tell you where to get it.
One theme that resonates throughout court decisions and EEOC filings over the last few years is that application of inflexible employment policies to disabled employees often runs afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).