In 2008, 17-year-old Samantha Elauf went to Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma to be interviewed for a model position at Abercrombie Kids. Although, the assistant manager Heather Cook believed Ms.Elauf was qualified for the position, she felt that her hijab would conflict with the stores “Look Policy”, which was an “East Coast collegiate preppy style that prohibits caps and the color black”(Barnes). When Ms. Cook consulted her direct manager Randall Johnson, he felt her headscarf was a problem and did not hire her. She reached out to The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and filed a complaint with The Equal Employment of Commission (EEOC) and they took up her case. The Equal Employment of Commission conducted an investigation
First, and most importantly, no one should be denied employment based on their religion. Second, no one should be denied employment based on appearance and/or attractiveness. According to Stephanie Scott, “While the Supreme Court held that Abercrombie violated the law when refusing to hire Elauf because of her headwear, it was because Elauf’s headwear was religiously motivated” (Kelly, 2016). In agreement to the Supreme Court, Samantha Elauf wears the hijab, because of her religion, with no knowledge of being denied for employment based on that. It is seen that Abercrombie was only motivated by their “look policy.” According to Marianne Levine (2015), “It wasn’t the first time Abercrombie has been compelled to defend its “look policy” in a legal forum, nor the first time that policy has drawn attention from the Equal Employment Opportunity Council, which brought the
This court case has a good and logical outcome: the firing of Ms. Guillen was clearly unjust and discriminatory. She went to the EEOC for help and was heard, as it should
In this case someone will always believe that they were not treated fairly or that the law was not applied fairly. Also, the fact that Wal-Mart is a huge corporation with powerful legal advisors will always be mentioned as a contributing factor for the ruling. However, we also need to consider the other side of the story, the qualified and good candidates that have been ruled out because small companies are afraid to violate the ADA law or any of the details of its scope. It is a “slippery slope” and unfortunately someone will always consider themselves discriminated in some
With the help of the EEOC many cases have been taken to court and discrimination thrust into the spotlight where it should be to be stopped. One EEOC case was of an Arizona woman who sued an Arizona Starbucks for discrimination while she was an employee in 2015. She had worked for the company for about seven years and throughout those years she asked for reasonable accommodations for important events, but was denied those accommodations most of the time. Finally, after putting up with it for so long the woman filed a complaint with the EEOC, she claims to have been fired soon after for speaking up. Yet “According to the lawsuit, Starbucks told her she was being fired for having visible tattoos”
After reading the article, “Why 62,000 Abercrombie & Fitch Employees Are Suing The Company,” there were two different problems that were brought to attention regarding Abercrombie & Fitch’s business ethics. The two problems were the mistreatment of their employees, and how their business marketing strategy is not well developed throughout their company. Abercrombie & Fitch is a company that has always been concerned about their image, which leads us to their, “look policy.” A “look policy” is a policy that relates to a certain look every employee has to follow to be eligible to work there. The company is facing a high-profile lawsuit over its, “look policy” (Greenhouse, 2015). Each employee is forced to purchase the company’s clothes to wear to work, each time a new sales guide comes out (Greenhouse, 2015). This is known as compelled purchases, which is a violation of the state’s labor codes (Greenhouse, 2015). They force the “look policy,” way too strong upon their employees, which developed into a huge problem. The company is facing a high-profile lawsuit
Summary Statement of the Case
This case present a conflict between Macy’s and MSLO after developing a strategic partnership. Macy’s Inc. is one of the nation’s premier omnichannel retailers. The company operates about 885 stores in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names of Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Bloomingdale’s Outlet and Bluemercury, as well as the macys.com, bloomingdales.com and bluemercury.com websites. Due to the high competition in retailing business Macy’s implemented in 2012 three-pronged business strategy to increase their sales and maintain their position in the market.
In week two, the assignment was to read about the company listed, and answer the questions provided. American Eagle Outfitters is a company that produces fashionable items for people in their teens, to mid-twenties. Their company offers a wide variety of products that range from personal accessories and clothes to fragrances. These goods sold by their company are considered to be of great quality for a reasonable price. Another interesting aspect of this company is that they create and promote their own products (Bethel University, 2011).
Okay Timothy I see where you are going, but I don't agree with you. When Ron Johnson took over in 2012, I feel he met well. He wanted to turn the store from negative to positive. J.C. Penney was not doing the right thing; in fact, they were hit with a class-action lawsuit in a California federal court because of deceptive and fraudulent advertising. "According to Reuters, the lead plaintiff in the suit purchased three blouses at J.C. Penney at a price of $17.99 each--seemingly a good deal in light of the $30 "original" price on the tag. /But with a little research, the shopper discovered that the blouses in question were never priced for more than $17.99 during the three months prior to her purchase" (J.C. Penney, n.d.). Doing wrong will always
The above advertisement is a commercial for an Axe Excite body cologne. The commercial begins with an angel falling from the sky. The commercial continues to show multiple angels falling from the sky, mesmerizing pedestrians as they walk pass. The angels are eventually seen gathering around a young boy—implying that he must be the one who is wearing the new Axe Excite cologne. The angels evidently remove their halos and smashes them onto the ground, while also having a sinister grin on their faces. The commercial ends with a voice over announcing: “New Axe Excite: Even Angels Will Fall.”