Introduce the Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuit.

In this introduction, you will also need to (1)

articulate the freedoms that companies in the United States enjoy given our relatively-free
market system and (2) present the Title VII regulations concerning employment discrimination.

Introduce the Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuit. In this introduction, you will also need to (1)
articulate the freedoms that companies in the United States enjoy given our relatively-free
market system and (2) present the Title VII regulations concerning employment discrimination.

Samantha Elauf was 17 years old when she applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch at the mall
in Tulsa Oklahoma, which she called her second home. She wore a hijab, which is a headscarf
worn by Muslim women for religious reasons. Abercrombie & Fitch had a policy that banned
headwear; therefore, they did not hire her. Samantha’s dress violated the store’s “look policy” for
their sales staff. In an interview with the Washington Post, former CEO Mike Jeffries explained
that they hire good-looking people to appeal to the cool, attractive all American kid. As cited in
the Washington Post, Jeffries stated “Because good-looking people attract other good-looking
people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other
than that (Kaplan, 2015). This case would be labeled as intentional discrimination. According to
our textbook, intentional discrimination occurs when the policies or practices of a company are
shaped by overt racial prejudices of its managers or executives (Fieser, 2015). Management
knew she was qualified for the sales position but felt that her hijab would violate the company’s
look policy. Therefore, they did chose not hire her. The act of discrimination took place when
Samantha was overlooked for the position due to her religious headwear. The Civil Rights Act of
1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender.

Abercrombie & Fitch violated The Civil Rights Act of 1964. They were morally wrong for not
hiring Samantha. If we applied the utilitarian theory to this case, then we can say that even
though the consequences were temporarily beneficial to the store, it was still a bad decision. The
utilitarian theory focuses on consequences, and happiness in the greatest amount (Fieser, 2015).
By not hiring Samantha, Abercrombie & Fitch were able to maintain their “look policy” for the
moment; however, they broke the law and got sued by The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. This case brought a lot of bad press to the establishment, and they lost a lot of
business. The comments indicated above from the former CEO caused consumers to stop
shopping at the store. His offensive statements discriminated against the consumers who do not
identify as “cool, good-looking people.” Abercrombie & Fitch created an unethical culture within
its organization. Their bad practices have cost the company a negative reputation and a lawsuit.

References

Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

Kaplan, S. (2015, June 2). The rise and fall of Abercrombie’s ‘look policy’. In The Washington
Post . Retrieved September 27, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com

This study source was downloaded by 100000857486611 from CourseHero.com on 11-22-2022 09:31:19 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/34214198/week-5-disc-1-PHI-445docx/
 Hi David,

Honestly, I was thinking the same thing. I was thinking that if I was a business owner, then I
should have the luxury of hiring who I want and what look I want them to have. If “Hooters” can
hire who they want and have a choice to what they look like and the size of their assets, then
Abercrombie should have a choice as well. I wonder what the difference is! As a business
owner, if you want to appeal to a particular consumer, then you have to draw them in by your
staff. This was just my thoughts.

Hi Joseph

I enjoyed reading your discussion, and I agree with you. Companies are giving a free hand in the
selection of its staff members. The government responsibility is to safeguard everyone’s interest;
however, they can’t make a company hire someone. It is the business’ responsibility to abide by
the law. They are not allowed not to hire someone based on their faiths and belief. Good luck on
your final and your educational goals.

This study source was downloaded by 100000857486611 from CourseHero.com on 11-22-2022 09:31:19 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/34214198/week-5-disc-1-PHI-445docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)