Abercrombie & Fitch: If you're different, don't shop here.
September 9, 2009 7:48 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: this sucks that this happened but it's basically a single link news story about a hate-on topic. Can we do it better? -- jessamyn
I thought this was going to be a rehash of the *worker* story we had a few weeks ago. But this is about *shoppers*. And they wouldn't apologize and even questioned her disability. Wow. Another data point against the "massive corporations would never do anything stupid because it would lose them money" theory.
posted by DU at 7:56 AM on September 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by DU at 7:56 AM on September 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
Or, as a real headline: Autistic teen sues Abercrombie & Fitch and wins.
But yeah, fuck those preppies and fuck their legal department for being extra dickish about the whole thing. Hope they lose their appeal.
posted by klangklangston at 7:56 AM on September 9, 2009
But yeah, fuck those preppies and fuck their legal department for being extra dickish about the whole thing. Hope they lose their appeal.
posted by klangklangston at 7:56 AM on September 9, 2009
It's not A&F per se, it's the fact that people working for them don't have the autonomy to make a decision based on good common sense. Or it might simply be that common sense ain't so common.
What shocks me is that A&F didn't apologize to the family. What's with the stick up their ass anyway?
Burning down, burning down Abercrombie and Fitch!
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 7:57 AM on September 9, 2009
What shocks me is that A&F didn't apologize to the family. What's with the stick up their ass anyway?
Burning down, burning down Abercrombie and Fitch!
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 7:57 AM on September 9, 2009
I guess they should be glad it happened in Minnesota and not Texas. She coulda ended up tasered. Or worse.
posted by DU at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
posted by DU at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
Obligatory link to a comment from a former A&F manager about their "culture".
posted by burnmp3s at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
posted by burnmp3s at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
Good points Ruthless Bunny. I was once a surly teen sales associate who did what she was told and didn't deviate. Had I been serving them, I probably would have mumbled something "Um, my, like, manager, said that I can't, like, let you do that. Sorry dudes."
posted by futureisunwritten at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
posted by futureisunwritten at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
yeah, klanklang, been a while since I posted...botched it up a bit
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009
RB, companies in A&F's position normally would rather litigate and lose or settle than apologize up front - the apology could be seen as an admission of liability that would invite even more lawsuits. It's sad because in many cases an apology would probably resolve the whole situation (though money is good too :))
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Be A Fucking Person.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:03 AM on September 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:03 AM on September 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
It's not a lawsuit - it's a state-imposed fine.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:04 AM on September 9, 2009
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:04 AM on September 9, 2009
Maybe she wasn't good looking enough to apologize to.
I'm referring to burnmp3s link here.
posted by futureisunwritten at 8:05 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm referring to burnmp3s link here.
posted by futureisunwritten at 8:05 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
the apology could be seen as an admission of liability that would invite even more lawsuits.
Is there a history of that being the case? It doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons.
1) If I'm legally liable, then an apology isn't going to be enough. Therefore an apology is not an admission of legal liability.
2) Even if they did admit liability, then in your scenario an apology would be enough to fix it. So those future lawsuits are handled by the Apology Department.
posted by DU at 8:05 AM on September 9, 2009
Is there a history of that being the case? It doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons.
1) If I'm legally liable, then an apology isn't going to be enough. Therefore an apology is not an admission of legal liability.
2) Even if they did admit liability, then in your scenario an apology would be enough to fix it. So those future lawsuits are handled by the Apology Department.
posted by DU at 8:05 AM on September 9, 2009
It's not A&F per se, it's the fact that people working for them don't have the autonomy to make a decision based on good common sense. Or it might simply be that common sense ain't so common.
According to the story, the store had a policy that allows exceptions to their rules for people with disabilities, but the store employees interpreted this to mean visible disabilities. So I'd say the latter is the correct assessment.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:06 AM on September 9, 2009
According to the story, the store had a policy that allows exceptions to their rules for people with disabilities, but the store employees interpreted this to mean visible disabilities. So I'd say the latter is the correct assessment.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:06 AM on September 9, 2009
From the article: In its legal battle, the company challenged the family's claim that Molly was disabled, requesting medical and school records and subjecting the girl to an interview with a forensic psychologist, her mother said.
What a bunch of dicks. Glad the state pursued and won, and glad there's 519 other stores to go to in that mall that actually like selling things. Well, 518, since Hollister is owned by them too.
posted by ALongDecember at 8:08 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
What a bunch of dicks. Glad the state pursued and won, and glad there's 519 other stores to go to in that mall that actually like selling things. Well, 518, since Hollister is owned by them too.
posted by ALongDecember at 8:08 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
BRO DUDE KING APOLOGIZES TO NO ONE.
posted by The Straightener at 8:09 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by The Straightener at 8:09 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's not a lawsuit - it's a state-imposed fine.
But it was an administrative law hearing, which is brought by a state government office as opposed to a private citizen, and which is ruled on by a judge.
posted by adamms222 at 8:10 AM on September 9, 2009
But it was an administrative law hearing, which is brought by a state government office as opposed to a private citizen, and which is ruled on by a judge.
posted by adamms222 at 8:10 AM on September 9, 2009
At this point, these stories are less about making me hate A&F more (which is impossible anyway) and more about fascinating me with the number of new ways they come up with to be dicks.
And they do it so controversially and openly, hitting people right on the soft tissue--I'm sure I truck with countless companies who commit all kinds of ethical and moral violations every day, but quietly and without fanfare. That A&F does what they do so openly, and in so many variations with each more appalling than the last--that's some cartoon villain shit right there. In a funny way, I almost admire it.
posted by padraigin at 8:10 AM on September 9, 2009 [4 favorites]
And they do it so controversially and openly, hitting people right on the soft tissue--I'm sure I truck with countless companies who commit all kinds of ethical and moral violations every day, but quietly and without fanfare. That A&F does what they do so openly, and in so many variations with each more appalling than the last--that's some cartoon villain shit right there. In a funny way, I almost admire it.
posted by padraigin at 8:10 AM on September 9, 2009 [4 favorites]
the apology could be seen as an admission of liability that would invite even more lawsuits.
Is there a history of that being the case? It doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons.
1) If I'm legally liable, then an apology isn't going to be enough. Therefore an apology is not an admission of legal liability.
2) Even if they did admit liability, then in your scenario an apology would be enough to fix it. So those future lawsuits are handled by the Apology Department.
posted by DU at 11:05 AM on September 9 [+] [!]
Sorry I meant invite more lawsuits as in a Public Apology is very bad PR that might remind other potential plaintiffs of the time that Company X screwed them; I shouldn't have used the word "liability" because a public apology isn't a literal legal admission of guilt.
It's just that if for instance I sue Company X for dumping poison in my water supply, and they publicly apologize (and I'm satisfied with that), a lot of other people dependent on that water will get the idea to sue - and they might not be satisfied with a mea culpa.
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:14 AM on September 9, 2009
Is there a history of that being the case? It doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons.
1) If I'm legally liable, then an apology isn't going to be enough. Therefore an apology is not an admission of legal liability.
2) Even if they did admit liability, then in your scenario an apology would be enough to fix it. So those future lawsuits are handled by the Apology Department.
posted by DU at 11:05 AM on September 9 [+] [!]
Sorry I meant invite more lawsuits as in a Public Apology is very bad PR that might remind other potential plaintiffs of the time that Company X screwed them; I shouldn't have used the word "liability" because a public apology isn't a literal legal admission of guilt.
It's just that if for instance I sue Company X for dumping poison in my water supply, and they publicly apologize (and I'm satisfied with that), a lot of other people dependent on that water will get the idea to sue - and they might not be satisfied with a mea culpa.
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:14 AM on September 9, 2009
A&F only lost because the government wouldn't let more than one lawyer in the courtroom to try the suit.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:15 AM on September 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:15 AM on September 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
Be A Fucking Person.
They're trained to follow company policy, regardless of what may seem like a reasonable deviation from that policy to an individual. The employee could get fired, and that's probably all that person was thinking about. Being a person doesn't seem to be a priority, on a normal day. That's a crappy reaction on their part, and the lack of an apology is unacceptable.
That said, A&F has always sucked, so this is not a surprise.
posted by mitzyjalapeno at 8:15 AM on September 9, 2009
They're trained to follow company policy, regardless of what may seem like a reasonable deviation from that policy to an individual. The employee could get fired, and that's probably all that person was thinking about. Being a person doesn't seem to be a priority, on a normal day. That's a crappy reaction on their part, and the lack of an apology is unacceptable.
That said, A&F has always sucked, so this is not a surprise.
posted by mitzyjalapeno at 8:15 AM on September 9, 2009
BRO DUDE KING APOLOGIZES TO NO ONE. (The Straightener)
That guy is so terrifying.
posted by ocherdraco at 8:16 AM on September 9, 2009
That guy is so terrifying.
posted by ocherdraco at 8:16 AM on September 9, 2009
Another thought - even if I said "Oh, it's okay A&F, you said you're sorry", I could still turn around and sue them if the statute of limitations hadn't run out by then. And if their apology gets in front of the jury it would be very hard for them to explain ("We said we're sorry even though we didn't do it"??)
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:16 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:16 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
- Lawsuit total = $115,264
- Bill from Duey, Cheatum, and Howe Law Offices = $115,263
- Family of autistic teenager = $1.00
posted by mrbarrett.com at 8:18 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
- Bill from Duey, Cheatum, and Howe Law Offices = $115,263
- Family of autistic teenager = $1.00
posted by mrbarrett.com at 8:18 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older How To Run a B&B in Baghdad | Vintage Kids' Stuff Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pollomacho at 7:52 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]