Abercrombie and 'Ditch'?
By Olivia Parish
Monday 28th September 2009
Monday 28th September 2009
It would seem that Abercrombie & Fitch’s ‘Hot or Not’ recruitment policy has got them into a spot of bother once again.
When you walk into an A & F store, I think most shoppers would agree, the clothes and accessories are not the first thing to catch your eye. On Savile Row, there is no neon sign, no automatic door, but it is unmistakably Abercrombie. Two tanned male models in faded jeans and flip-flops, flaunt their naked, tanned torsos just within the doors. They’ve got the look. The look which seems to prove that A & F is the magnet toward which all these universally-recognised beautiful people have been drawn. The big guns claim that these people fit the store’s image, and their striking appearance makes people want to shop there. As such, the label finds itself directly associated with this image of ‘beauty’.
However, over the past few years, claims have been made that Abercrombie & Fitch is advocating too narrow a view, and seemingly creating a restricted stereotype for what constitutes beauty.
In the USA in 2003, a group of Asian Americans and Latin Americans filed a law suit against Abercrombie, claiming that they had been fired or denied jobs by the company for discriminatory reasons based on ethnicity and race. Similar cases were also filed in 2005 and 2006 on the basis of white employees being promoted at the expense of minorities.
More recently and closer to home, 22- year-old student, Riam Dean, was asked to complete her work tasks away from the shop floor. This was in order to keep her prosthetic arm, considered to be in conflict with the store’s ‘look’ policy, out of the sight of customers.
Following her application to work at the store, Miss Dean’s photograph was taken and she was given a handbook offering guidelines to ensure compliance with the Abercrombie and Fitch image. According to the Daily Mail, the handbook "stipulates that staff must represent a 'natural, classic American style' and instructs them on everything from how to wear their hair (clean and natural) to how long they should wear their nails (a quarter of an inch past the end of the finger)."
Working at the Savile Row store, Riam was initially given the permission of management to wear a cardigan to cover her prosthetic arm. However, this offer was quickly revoked and became an order for expulsion to the stockroom until the winter uniform was brought in. Riam resigned following the disagreement, and has since launched and won her lawsuit against A & F. This incident has once again provoked questions within the fashion world as to whether a store’s ’look’ policy is a step too far. Writer for The Guardian, Hadley Freemen, passed judgement on A & F: “judging by their ads, the look is no clothes at all- brave, for a fashion label.”
What are your clothes saying about you?
When you walk into an A & F store, I think most shoppers would agree, the clothes and accessories are not the first thing to catch your eye. On Savile Row, there is no neon sign, no automatic door, but it is unmistakably Abercrombie. Two tanned male models in faded jeans and flip-flops, flaunt their naked, tanned torsos just within the doors. They’ve got the look. The look which seems to prove that A & F is the magnet toward which all these universally-recognised beautiful people have been drawn. The big guns claim that these people fit the store’s image, and their striking appearance makes people want to shop there. As such, the label finds itself directly associated with this image of ‘beauty’.
However, over the past few years, claims have been made that Abercrombie & Fitch is advocating too narrow a view, and seemingly creating a restricted stereotype for what constitutes beauty.
In the USA in 2003, a group of Asian Americans and Latin Americans filed a law suit against Abercrombie, claiming that they had been fired or denied jobs by the company for discriminatory reasons based on ethnicity and race. Similar cases were also filed in 2005 and 2006 on the basis of white employees being promoted at the expense of minorities.
More recently and closer to home, 22- year-old student, Riam Dean, was asked to complete her work tasks away from the shop floor. This was in order to keep her prosthetic arm, considered to be in conflict with the store’s ‘look’ policy, out of the sight of customers.
Following her application to work at the store, Miss Dean’s photograph was taken and she was given a handbook offering guidelines to ensure compliance with the Abercrombie and Fitch image. According to the Daily Mail, the handbook "stipulates that staff must represent a 'natural, classic American style' and instructs them on everything from how to wear their hair (clean and natural) to how long they should wear their nails (a quarter of an inch past the end of the finger)."
Working at the Savile Row store, Riam was initially given the permission of management to wear a cardigan to cover her prosthetic arm. However, this offer was quickly revoked and became an order for expulsion to the stockroom until the winter uniform was brought in. Riam resigned following the disagreement, and has since launched and won her lawsuit against A & F. This incident has once again provoked questions within the fashion world as to whether a store’s ’look’ policy is a step too far. Writer for The Guardian, Hadley Freemen, passed judgement on A & F: “judging by their ads, the look is no clothes at all- brave, for a fashion label.”
What are your clothes saying about you?
