Reference no: EM131495543
Analysis and Evaluation
Who are the stakeholders in the case and what are their stakes? What challenges, threats or opportunities are posed by these stakeholders?
What economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities does the company have, and what is the nature and extent of these responsibilities?
If the case involves company actions, evaluate what the company did or did not do in handling the issue affecting it.
Case Study 35: “Looksism” at A&F
Introduction:
“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.
When Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) CEO Michael Jeffries said these words in a Salon interview, relatively few took notice. Years later, Business Insider unearthed the quote and included it in an article about A&F’s unwillingness to make clothing for larger women. In the words of Robin Lewis, that 2006 spark then became a 2013 conflagration. The quote went viral through social networks, Twitter, You Tube, and blogs. As a result, A&F stores around the country found themselves to be targets of boycotts and protest. This time the issue was A&F’s unwillingness to carry larger sizes, but that is not the only “exclusion” for which A&F has been called to task. A&F has a long history of being charged with discrimination for its attempts to promote a consistent A&F look.
Looksism, i.e., appearance-based discrimination, is always an ethical issue, but when it begins to affect protected groups, it can be a legal issue as well. A decade ago, a coalition of four organizations filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against A&F. The coalition filing the lawsuit included the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. The nine plaintiffs to the lawsuit claimed that A&F discriminated against people of color, including Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans, in its hiring practices, job assignments once hired, compensation, termination, and conditions of employment—they settled the case for $50 million minus attorney fees and costs. In 2009, an Oklahoma teen successfully sued A&F for not hiring her after telling her that her hijab, a headscarf she wore in keeping with her Muslim beliefs, was not consistent with the A&F “look.” More recently, a corporate jet pilot who claimed A&F fired him and then replaced him with a younger man charged A&F with age discrimination. Then a Denver judge ruled that the entrances to A&F’s surfing-themed Hollister stores violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)’s requirements for accessibility. In 2011, the firm even insulted the Jersey Shore cast by offering to pay them if they would stop wearing A&F clothing.
please answer the following questions:
What are the legal and ethical issues in this case?
What is your evaluation of the concept of the “A&F look?” Have you personally observed this concept in practice?
Are the employment practices of A&F discriminatory? What ethical principles guide your analysis?
How should A&F manage an increasingly diverse workforce? What challenges and advantages will there be?
What could A&F and other retailers be doing to make their hiring practices less controversial?
What specific steps could A&F leadership take to address the issues raised in the case study?
What stakeholders are involved with this case? What are their stakes? Where do their interests in A&F compliment, and contradict each other?
How is A&F addressing their Corporate Social Responsibility? What are they doing?
What advice would you give A&F? Would you invest in the company?
What can you find out about what A&F has done in the last few years – have they done anything to address the issues this case raises?