1. What are the legal and ethical issues in this case?

The issue here is how a company determines who to hire. There is a difference

between appearance and personal characteristics such as the color of someone’s skin.

If it is obvious that the company is hiring attractive people only, than it would have to be

determine if the company is using that as an excuse to hide the fact that they do not hire

a certain race.

Abercrombie and Fitch’s whole idea of only wanting and hiring “good looking”

representatives at their store is appearance discrimination which is the preference of

ones attractiveness over another.

Discrimination on the basis of looks is deeply rooted and widely practiced, and

there are obvious limits to how much legal policy strategies can affect it. But the same

has been true for other forms of discrimination. And the last half-century leaves no

doubt that legal prohibitions and public activism can promote significant change. Surely

the values at state are worth the effort. The kind of attention that women once gave to

the state of their souls they now give to the state of their bodies. Too often, the result is

far from constructive. The financial, psychological, and physical price of appearance

demands closer attention and collective action. Appearance must be seen not only as

an aesthetic issue, but as a legal and police one as well.

2. What is your evaluation of the concept of the “A&F look?” Have you personally

observed this concept in practice?

3. Are the employment practices of A&F discriminatory? Are they unfair? What ethical

principles or precepts guide your analysis? Since Abercrombie did not admit guilt, does

the settlement bring closure to this issue of “looks” discrimination?

This is unfair in many ways especially considering one can’t help or control their

looks. Ones looks has nothing to do with work ethic so it shouldn’t be an issue in the

workplace. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from

discrimination based on the protected categories of race, color, sex, national origin, and

religion. Appearance, let alone “attractiveness” (or the lack thereof), is not a protected

category. Consequently, it is not necessarily illegal to discriminate based on

appearance, for example, by hiring only attractive people. It is insane that companies

like Abercrombie and Fitch can discriminate based on looks and get away with it.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what form and castigating somebody based

on looks is definitely unjust ethically.

Employers have discretion to make appearance based hiring decisions when

appearance is essential to the business. Nonetheless, in some situations employers

purport the fundamental necessity of attractiveness, but cannot prove that it goes to the

very essence of their business.

4. What could A&F and other retailers be doing, that they are not doing, and that would

make their hiring practices less controversial?

Easy, hire more minorities. If A&F and other like retailers hire more minorities to work in

public roles then there would be less controversy. They could also use minorities in

marketing, as models and representatives, in an attempt to lure more minorities into

their stores to buy merchandise.

1. What are the legal and ethical issues in this case?

The issue here is how a company determines who to hire. There is a difference between
appearance and personal characteristics such as the color of someone’s skin. If it is obvious
that the company is hiring attractive people only, than it would have to be determine if the
company is using that as an excuse to hide the fact that they do not hire a certain race.

Abercrombie and Fitch’s whole idea of only wanting and hiring “good looking”
representatives at their store is appearance discrimination which is the preference of ones
attractiveness over another.

Discrimination on the basis of looks is deeply rooted and widely practiced, and there are
obvious limits to how much legal policy strategies can affect it. But the same has been true for
other forms of discrimination. And the last half-century leaves no doubt that legal prohibitions
and public activism can promote significant change. Surely the values at state are worth the
effort. The kind of attention that women once gave to the state of their souls they now give to
the state of their bodies. Too often, the result is far from constructive. The financial,
psychological, and physical price of appearance demands closer attention and collective action.
Appearance must be seen not only as an aesthetic issue, but as a legal and police one as well.

2. What is your evaluation of the concept of the “A&F look?” Have you personally observed this
concept in practice?

On my evaluation in this case about A&F were requirements on hiring is be "attractive"

employees as part of its brand, and has a "Look Policy" in place but employers should not
always hired based on looks. Employers should be aware of these biases and make sure that
employment decisions are based on objective criteria. Because bias tends to occur when
interviews are the primary method by which candidates are hired, it is advisable to factor other
objective forms of evaluation such as selection assessments and work samples into hiring
decisions. Use of a structured or behavioral interview format (including standard questions and
an interview form) can also help minimize bias.

Personally I think discrimination on looks very often occurs on a subconscious level.

People are drawn more to attractive people, ergo more attractive people get the jobs/better jobs.

3. Are the employment practices of A&F discriminatory? Are they unfair? What ethical principles
or precepts guide your analysis? Since Abercrombie did not admit guilt, does the settlement
bring closure to this issue of “looks” discrimination?

This is unfair in many ways especially considering one can’t help or control their looks.
Ones looks has nothing to do with work ethic so it shouldn’t be an issue in the workplace. “Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on
the protected categories of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Appearance, let alone
“attractiveness” (or the lack thereof), is not a protected category. Consequently, it is not
necessarily illegal to discriminate based on appearance, for example, by hiring only attractive
people. It is insane that companies like Abercrombie and Fitch can discriminate based on looks
and get away with it. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what form and castigating
somebody based on looks is definitely unjust ethically.

Employers have discretion to make appearance based hiring decisions when

appearance is essential to the business. Nonetheless, in some situations employers purport the
fundamental necessity of attractiveness, but cannot prove that it goes to the very essence of
their business.

4. What could A&F and other retailers be doing, that they are not doing, and that would make
their hiring practices less controversial?

A&F and other like retailers should hire employees fit for the job. They should hire "nice,
smart optimistic people" who have a "strong work ethic" and are focused on providing great
customer service. They should stop the practice of using shirtless models or lifeguards at events
and store openings. Rather than call its sales staff "models," the employees may simply be
referred them as "brand representatives."

The company should open on accommodating disabilities and "sincerely-held religious

beliefs."

In an organization which is focused on products and creativity, diversity is necessary. By

increasing diversity of employees, there was an increase in innovation. This stemmed from
better understanding their customer’s desires and needs.