Religious Descrimination at Abercrombie & Fitch?

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

My $0.02:

Given that Hooters has successfully defended itself in court against discrimination suits based upon their practice of hiring women with certain... ahem... attributes, I doubt A&F would have difficulty defending their hiring of salesclerks based upon their appearance and their ability to model the clothing that the store is selling.

However, the general outlook of many men not withstanding, those certain attributes are not an item of religious faith.

[I_luv_saber]

Aw - now see that one deserves rep...

I'm tapped out, buddy, sorry

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

However, the general outlook of many men not withstanding, those certain attributes are not an item of religious faith.

But why should it matter if someone's beliefs are endorsed by an imaginary god or not?

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by prototoast

But why should it matter if someone's beliefs are endorsed by an imaginary god or not?

If you're referring to the God of Cleavage, I assure you, Hugh Hefner is far from imaginary.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Philistine

So, it is entirely proper (and, in fact, quite a good idea) to fire someone because they are a Mets fan or a Redskin's fan--but not because they are black, jewish, a woman, over 40, disabled, etc.

Indeed, the fact that I have no problem with the arbitrary nature of some of these choices is what underlies my thoughts on this. Further my general support of affirmative action is based on the premise that you are simply modifying arbitrary criteria so generating little penalty.

Originally Posted by Philistine

It certainly results in some anomalies, and some inefficiencies in the system, and is often arbitrary--.e.g., if you protect one thing from discrimination, why not another--but I think it unlikely that the system will change anytime soon in any major way in the direction of "less protection."

I guess the question that kinda gets to me is the regulation of arbitrary; since any group of individuals is likely hold incompletely overlapping opinions. That A&F are in the business of discrimination, although at the extreme end compared to most clothing retailers, is why I am willing to believe their explanation. Sometimes a low opinion is useful I suppose.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by prototoast

But why should it matter if someone's beliefs are endorsed by an imaginary god or not?

In theory, you're right.

In practice, it's more complicated than that...

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Actually, the Hooters case was settled for a moderate payment ($3.75 million) and a continuation of the female-only server policy with the creation of male-eligible positions (e.g. bartender and host).

My bad. I was relying on a summary from the Hooters website and didn't look deep enough. Thanks for the correction.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by thereom4

I thought this was a capitalist society? Why not try and maximize possible sales and widen your market?

Maximizing sales is not the same as maximizing profit. There is also sustainability. If I run a company, I can choose to run it to make as much as possible right now, future be damned, or I can choose to run it in a way that I believe will be sustainable for a very long time, which may include choices to reduce profits in the short term.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Maximizing sales is not the same as maximizing profit. There is also sustainability. If I run a company, I can choose to run it to make as much as possible right now, future be damned, or I can choose to run it in a way that I believe will be sustainable for a very long time, which may include choices to reduce profits in the short term.

Thanks for the business lesson. But we're missing the point here a little aren't we?

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by thereom4

Thanks for the business lesson. But we're missing the point here a little aren't we?

We are? Sure. I'll go with that.

You equated capitalism with maximizing revenue, in an argument about discrimination. It struck me as very wrong on several levels.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

We are? Sure. I'll go with that.

Royal "we"

Originally Posted by tchwojko

You equated capitalism with maximizing revenue, in an argument about discrimination. It struck me as very wrong on several levels.

Well that's your humble opinion. My point (which was a smaller part of a larger argument) was that since A&F is in the business of making money, it would be in their best interest to go after a larger market. To openly discriminate against minorites through hiring practices and marketing is not a smart business practice. IMO. They will end up getting sued like they have. They will end up paying out money to claimants like they have. They will end up with negative publicity like they have. In the end discrimination hurts business. Take for example the Montgomery bus boycotts. How much money did the transit system in Montgomery end up losing during the 382 days that blacks boycotted?

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by thereom4

Royal "we"

? In your usage, the royal "we" would mean "you". I'll agree to that too.

Well that's your humble opinion.

Wrong! I have a huge ego.

My point (which was a smaller part of a larger argument) was that since A&F is in the business of making money, it would be in their best interest to go after a larger market.

Ferrari should go after the low end high volume, low margin part of the auto market? I don't think that would be a good business decision.

To openly discriminate against minorites through hiring practices and marketing is not a smart business practice.

I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with the size of their target market.

IMO. They will end up getting sued like they have. They will end up paying out money to claimants like they have. They will end up with negative publicity like they have. In the end discrimination hurts business. Take for example the Montgomery bus boycotts. How much money did the transit system in Montgomery end up losing during the 382 days that blacks boycotted?

Again, I agree discrimination is bad. Unfortunately it doesn't necessarily follow that it'll significantly hurt their business.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Ferrari should go after the low end high volume, low margin part of the auto market? I don't think that would be a good business decision.

Clothing and cars are two different things. If only a few people can afford Ferrari then those are the people they should target. A&F is a retailer with affordable clothing. Though I personally think that the clothing is overpriced. When they target young men and women from a particular background, they miss a larger market of young men and women from all backgrounds who would otherwise buy their clothing. I am close enough to their targeted age group. Yet they do not market to me? If I felt compelled enough to spend $80/$90 on a flannel shirt (I hope I will never be that insane), A&F would miss my business because they don't think I'm important enough to market to.

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Again, I agree discrimination is bad. Unfortunately it doesn't necessarily follow that it'll significantly hurt their business.

Well then "we" disagree. Lawsuits and bad press as a result of their discrimination will hurt their business in the long run. Whether the damage is significant or not remains to be seen. I guess "we" have a project now.

[keith]

Originally Posted by thereom4

Clothing and cars are two different things.

Not really. Italian shoes, suits and, certain, Italian cars are priced at a certain point for multiple reasons. Now in both cases the arguement would be that quality and price are incompatible - although given the non-linear relationship value shoppers might be dissuaded.

The choice not to shop at Utilitarian Work Smocks R'Us, is all about personal image. Different retailers target different images but most brand marketing is about snobbery, sometimes even the reverse kind.

Originally Posted by thereom4

Yet they do not market to me?

I realise the exercise may have been for a different purpose; but didn't you outline how to produce a cheap version of an A&F top via some simple needlework?

Originally Posted by thereom4

If I felt compelled enough to spend $80/$90 on a flannel shirt (I hope I will never be that insane), A&F would miss my business because they don't think I'm important enough to market to.

That's two things. You are being marketed to, but you are choosing not to shop at that price point. Even if you go elsewhere and purchase something of that look they have marketed successfully.

Originally Posted by thereom4

Well then "we" disagree. Lawsuits and bad press as a result of their discrimination will hurt their business in the long run. Whether the damage is significant or not remains to be seen. I guess "we" have a project now.

It is indeed a project, image maintenance via sales staff appearance codes vs bad press from lawsuits.

Given this is America I have suspicions which way that will go .

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by thereom4

Clothing and cars are two different things. If only a few people can afford Ferrari then those are the people they should target. A&F is a retailer with affordable clothing. Though I personally think that the clothing is overpriced. When they target young men and women from a particular background, they miss a larger market of young men and women from all backgrounds who would otherwise buy their clothing. I am close enough to their targeted age group. Yet they do not market to me? If I felt compelled enough to spend $80/$90 on a flannel shirt (I hope I will never be that insane), A&F would miss my business because they don't think I'm important enough to market to.



Well then "we" disagree. Lawsuits and bad press as a result of their discrimination will hurt their business in the long run. Whether the damage is significant or not remains to be seen. I guess "we" have a project now.

The Ferrari example is a good one. A&F's target market is college age consumers with a discriminating taste. They are willing to pay more for their perceived value. You said yourself that they are overpriced, thus why they don't market to you or other backgrounds in the larger market. Because they appeal to a market that considers themselves "elite", I don't agree that the lawsuit will hurt them, and may in fact increase their business.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by thereom4

Clothing and cars are two different things. If only a few people can afford Ferrari then those are the people they should target. A&F is a retailer with affordable clothing. Though I personally think that the clothing is overpriced. When they target young men and women from a particular background, they miss a larger market of young men and women from all backgrounds who would otherwise buy their clothing. I am close enough to their targeted age group. Yet they do not market to me? If I felt compelled enough to spend $80/$90 on a flannel shirt (I hope I will never be that insane), A&F would miss my business because they don't think I'm important enough to market to.

If they target a different group of people, would their margins be the same? How would they differentiate from their competitors? Would they lose business from their core competency thus reducing their competitive advantage?

Your basic premise of more = better is just plain false. There are other better arguments to be made.

Well then "we" disagree. Lawsuits and bad press as a result of their discrimination will hurt their business in the long run.

Any evidence other than faith that this is true? I wish it were, but I don't think it is guaranteed.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Any evidence other than faith that this is true? I wish it were, but I don't think it is guaranteed.

I have to agree with this; if their target market is so influenced by good looking salespeople that they will pay $80 for a flannel shirt, I don't really expect a discrimination suit to have any impact on their sales.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by keith

Not really. Italian shoes, suits and, certain, Italian cars are priced at a certain point for multiple reasons. Now in both cases the arguement would be that quality and price are incompatible - although given the non-linear relationship value shoppers might be dissuaded.

The choice not to shop at Utilitarian Work Smocks R'Us, is all about personal image. Different retailers target different images but most brand marketing is about snobbery, sometimes even the reverse kind.

I think it's less about snobbery and more about racism. The court in Gonzalez v A&F seemed to agree as well. Though there is still some controversy surrounding the Consent Decree in this case. Part of the settlement says that A&F must now include it's minority employees in its marketing materials. Here is the link: http://www.afjustice.com/pdf/2005042...ent_decree.pdf (it starts on page 24)

Originally Posted by keith

I realise the exercise may have been for a different purpose; but didn't you outline how to produce a cheap version of an A&F top via some simple needlework?

Well you've answered your question when you say the exercise was for a different purpose.

Originally Posted by keith

That's two things. You are being marketed to, but you are choosing not to shop at that price point. Even if you go elsewhere and purchase something of that look they have marketed successfully.

In this instance I was not talking about not shopping there because of price. I was talking about marketing. They don't think African Americans are important enough to market to. In fact they probably don't want me to shop there. If I went elsewhere and purchased a flannel shirt, it wouldn't be because of their marketing of flannel shirts. To be specific, flannel shirts were a trendy item a few months ago, and it still kind of is. I've seen them in just about every clothing store at varying price points. My point in the example I gave was that if I decided I wanted to spend $80/$90 on a flannel shirt I would not go to A&F because they don't market to me. I would go to another retailer who also sells flannel shirts for $80/$90. But even if A&F's marketing of flannel shirts made me want to buy one, I still would not buy from them because they don't market to African Americans.

Originally Posted by tchwojko

If they target a different group of people, would their margins be the same? How would they differentiate from their competitors? Would they lose business from their core competency thus reducing their competitive advantage?

I don't know if their margins would be the same. They differentiate themselves by being racist in their employment and marketing practices. They very well could lose business from their core competency. But the question is why did their core competency stop buying? Why would opening their market to people of the same age group but different ethnic backgrounds stop them from buying? Would it stop them from buying? Why would it stop them from buying?

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Your basic premise of more = better is just plain false. There are other better arguments to be made.

Well that is just your opinion. I don't believe that more always equals better. Let's not confuse things. In this instance, I believe opening up A&F's demographic would be better. I believe I have made better arguments. Perhaps we should engage in discussion on one of them. You choose.

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Any evidence other than faith that this is true? I wish it were, but I don't think it is guaranteed.

If they continue to be sued because of unfair employment practices it will hurt their business. I doubt it could help it. Although there is that section of society I'm sure who will probably go ahead and patronize A&F simply because they don't hire minorities or use them in their marketing materials. There are those who will say that this business model is part of their marketing/branding or what have you of eliteness, and I agree if you (figurative) mean elite like racist.

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

The Ferrari example is a good one. A&F's target market is college age consumers with a discriminating taste. They are willing to pay more for their perceived value. You said yourself that they are overpriced, thus why they don't market to you or other backgrounds in the larger market. Because they appeal to a market that considers themselves "elite", I don't agree that the lawsuit will hurt them, and may in fact increase their business.

I've explained that I would not shop there. I'm not impressed by A&F. I used myself simply as an example of a minority consumer who they do not market to. Do you think that people of other backgrounds besides the one they market to would not shop there because of price? Again I personally would not shop there, but that is just me. I am cheap and proud of it. While there are certain items of clothing I am willing to spend money on, an $80 tank top will never be one of them. Like you said, it's about perceived value. And I don't think a tank top is worth that much. But getting back on topic, are you saying that other minority men and women would not shop there because of price? I will assure you that is an incorrect assumption. While some may not, there are those who would.

[Phaeton]

I have made a few films over the last two years. I've done a fair share of casting calls. The rules as it applies to talent (in terms of acting, modeling etc.) cannot be the same as the rules that apply to the general labor force, or else we'd end up with situations like this (albeit less amusing).

I can understand when one is looking for an actor for a part certain racial and ethnic groups are excluded. Denzel Washington would never be cast to play JFK in any kind of serious biopic. Neither would a Hasidic Jew who refuses to shave and cut the corners of his face.

There needs to be protections for discrimination in certain fields. I honestly would have a very hard time taking a movie with a black hasidic JFK seriously.



The question I think should be asked is whether or not it is reasonable to have store model/sale attendent positions merged into a single position to allow the discrimination that should apply (although I don't know if it legally does) to "talent" to apply to towards average members of the labor force.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Phaeton

I have made a few films over the last two years. I've done a fair share of casting calls. The rules as it applies to talent (in terms of acting, modeling etc.) cannot be the same as the rules that apply to the general labor force, or else we'd end up with situations like this (albeit less amusing).

I can understand when one is looking for an actor for a part certain racial and ethnic groups are excluded. Denzel Washington would never be cast to play JFK in any kind of serious biopic. Neither would a Hasidic Jew who refuses to shave and cut the corners of his face.

There needs to be protections for discrimination in certain fields. I honestly would have a very hard time taking a movie with a black hasidic JFK seriously.



The question I think should be asked is whether or not it is reasonable to have store model/sale attendent positions merged into a single position to allow the discrimination that should apply (although I don't know if it legally does) to "talent" to apply to towards average members of the labor force.

Acting is specifically, and narrowly, excluded from this section of the Civil Rights Act.