A&F: Colors of Hiring Discrimination

Abercrombie & Fitch: Colors of Hiring Discrimination

Tinisha T Moffitt

Ins. Joel Tennis

8/24/16

PHI445: Personal and Organizational Ethics

Abercrombie and Fitch faced a lawsuit regarding religious discrimination. Title VII, though vaguely, speaks to the suppression of workplace discrimination. The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco by young people of color who had been wrongfully judged for their appearances and either refused employment or terminated. These employees had been misjudged based on the perception of what A&F deemed the “classic” look. To familiarize those unfamiliar with A&Fs processes (prior to the lawsuit); to apply one not only needed to fill out an application but also submit a portfolio or headshots. The company not only viewed the qualifications of its applicants but also the appearance of the applicants. A&Fs actions towards people of color was justified by them as a simple misconception of race, religion and creed prejudices. In other words, they did not “intentionally” discriminate against anyone and their intentions are a result of their misconception of the regulations. However, the case was taken to the US District Court. In no legal house (courtroom) is anyone allowed to break the law based on a lack of knowledge.

The EEOC decrees that it is unlawful to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual…” (Title VII-Section 703, (a:1). It is my strong opinion that it is also unethical. The Oxford dictionary defines utilitarianism as the principle of which an action is considered right if it fosters happiness “…and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.” (Oxford Dictionary). Since A&F most likely scarred thousands of young adults with their systematic white washing attempts from within the fashion industry; it suffices to say their actions were not meant for the good of the “greatest number of people”.

Many...