Discriminatory Practices of Abercrombie and Fitch

2504 Words10 Pages
Abercrombie & Fitch Discriminatory Practices Recognized for good-looking, all-American, and typically white male and female clothing models, Abercrombie & Fitch has develop into a special type of model of late-a model of asserted employment discrimination (Stephanie 2005). The clothing idol lately cleared up two private class actions and a civil action law suits by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") by consenting to compensate more than $40 million to African American, Hispanic, and Asian plaintiffs who claimed that Abercrombie discriminated against them (Stephanie 2005); Abercrombie in addition entered into a agreement with the EEOC recognized as a Consent Decree. In Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie, et al., West v. Abercrombie, et al., and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the plaintiffs disputed that they were either restricted to low visibility, back-of-the-store kind jobs or laid off and fired on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Equal Opportunity, occasionally called equality of opportunity, is a contentious yet significant decision-making standard with no exact definition concerning fair preferences within the public domain (Austen 1999). Although it normally depicts open and just contest with equal possibilities for achieving employment without any discrimination, the idea is intangible with a broad meaning. It is difficult to determine, and execution leads to issues as well as differences concerning what to do. It is
Open Document