Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abercrombie & Fitch Case Study
Abercrombie & Fitch Case Study
Abercrombie & Fitch Case Study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Facts of the Case: In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., who as part of their “Look Policy” prohibit the use of caps. Elauf, as part of her religious practice, wore a headscarf to the interview. She was interviewed by assistant manager Heather Cooke, who gave her a score that qualified her to be hired. Cooke, however, was worried that Elauf’s headscarf was against the store’s policy and called her district manager Randall Johnson. She informed Johnson of her belief that Elauf wore her headscarf because of her religion, and Johnson replied that headwear whether it was religious or not violated the “Look Policy” of the store. Elauf with the help of the EEOC sued Abercrombie on the grounds of religious discrimination. The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an agency established by the government of the United States that imposes federal laws that make it The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. Race, color, national origin, gender, and religion are known as protected classes. The Supreme Court later established “several theories of discrimination that plaintiffs may purses based on the type of discrimination alleged.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015) The three most common theories are disparate treatment, mixed motives, and disparate impact. Aquino v. Honda is an example of disparate treatment as Aquino believe his was terminated, thus discriminated against, because of his race. Disparate Treatment is defined as “overt and intentional discrimination.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015)The burden of proof was on Honda to prove it had legitimate reason to terminate Aquino. The court ruled that Honda had met the burden of proof; the firing was not discriminatory as the accusations were not baseless nor did they amount to pretext. When the burned shifted back to Aquino to prove his firing was discriminatory in nature, he could not provide any
Introduction The retail industry has always been a very competitive environment when dealing with sales and maintaining up to date with the current trends. Ross Stores has become one of the most successful companies in the apparel business since established in 1982 by Stuart Moldaw. (Ross Stores, Inc. History, n.d.).
Abercrombie and Fitch is an American retailer who has been facing many outstanding issues and is at risk of disappearing. For the past two decades, the company has been facing severe controversy. Abercrombie and Fitch has been long criticized for lack diversity and inclusion. The company excludes minorities and plus-sized customers from its stores. This controversy has brought many financial problems to Abercrombie and Fitch.
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. This strategy was to enable Macy’s to reach both online and in store customers and provide them with a unique choice of merchandises.
“Macy’s operating margin in 3Q15 fell to 4.4% from 6.8% in 3Q14, mainly due to asset impairment charges of $111 million related to the plans to close 35 to 40 stores in early 2016 (Bailey).” This decline was a result from not only lower sales but the company’s investments in digital growth in its Bluemercury expansion, as well as cost of entry into the China market and additional investment in the Backstage stores (Bailey). These factors could have appeared more detrimental if it had not been for the lower marketing expenses, restructuring initiatives, and a reduction in bonus accrual that were intended to counteract weak sales performance (Bailey). Higher digital growth helped to offset the decrease in earnings ("Macy 's Earnings Fall for
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
My company of choice for this report is Macy 's. 'The Magic of Macy 's ', as the company advertises it, has inspired me to shop there, take advantage of their incomparable discounts and great online shopping experience. Macy 's, Inc. is one of the largest department store chains in the United States of America. Macy 's manages stores under the Macy 's and Bloomingdale 's brands. I enjoy shopping at both of the company 's store brands, Macy 's and Bloomingdales. Bloomingdales provides a more personalized experience
However, for the accusing of the religious discrimination, employers may have a lot to say. The key point of this case is that the employers don’t know about Kareem’s religion and his religious practices need. In this case, Kareem claims the employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate religion. To establish a prima facie case, he has to show three following things. The first is the existence of the conflict between his religious practices and an employment requirement. Secondly, he should ensure that the employer really know about his religious
The case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) vs. Abercrombie & Fitch began in October of 2014. Samantha Eulaf, a practicing muslim woman, interviewed for a job at one of the storefronts of the corporation, Abercrombie & Fitch. Following the interview, Eulaf was not hired due to her headscarf which was not acceptable in the guidelines of the store’s look policy. The EEOC then stepped in to speak on Eulaf’s behalf claiming that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant's religious practice when the practice can be accommodated without undue hardship.
headdresses and the stigma around them. Women Working with Immigrant Women (2000) released an issue in which experiences reported by Muslim women wearing hijab and comments made by employers illustrate the barriers and types of discrimination women experience. One woman was “told by an employer that she should remove ‘head cap’” (p.1), this is an excellent example when illustrating the ignorance of the uneducated. The employer did not refer to the correct term for her “head cap” most likely because they do not have knowledge on the matter or did, but, instead decided to be disrespectful by referring to it incorrectly. One woman was told, “she would be hired on condition of removing her hijab” (p.2) while another woman was told by a job search facilitator that her “chances are limited at finding a job when she is wearing hijab” (p.2). It can be proven that discrimination against Muslims in the workplace is not a myth, but instead a crystal clear fact. The job search facilitator’s clear knowledge of what kind of individuals are hired for jobs allowed for the presumption that a woman who wears a hijab would not make it in that category.
As we know from the case Abercrombie and Fitch has been criticized for its promoting systems because of its in-store advertisements of solid men and tempting ladies posturing verging on stripped in suggestive ways.(case) Even if we know that it is A&F strategy,we also can see that the main customers of A&F is t-agers. The point is that A&F is under the pressure and hard critic from older generation (parents) because the main target market of A&F is t-agers or college kids, it is providing or promoting sex and sexuality of models who works there rather than promoting the clothes and brand. But know A&F is in the right way. !Now Abercrombie & Fitch will end by July its "sexualized marketing," after years of blanketing its web sites, store windows
After roaming around for hours in several malls trying to look for the perfect shoes with perfect design and size, Nick Swinmurn mission had failed. This was the reason he started “ShoeSite.com” in 1999. The first thought was to make a site that offered the best selection in shoes regarding brands, styles, shades, sizes, and widths. After a few months the name was changed into “Zappos” and that’s when all the magic began. If you are wondering what’s so special about Zappos, and why would a business very successful like Amazon.com would buy it for 1.2 Billion dollars you should defiantly consider continue reading this case study.( Zappos.com 2014)
Shopping at Abercrombie or watching La La Land at CGV with the “popular group” is a fantasy everybody once dream about in their lifetime. In Seoul International School, my friend Sophia is intelligent and particularly exceeds expectations during social studies class. On the off chance that you toss her a question about The Ottoman Empire, without uncertainty, she would give you the appropriate response quickly. She is agile and flexible, therefore, the physical education teachers at my school laud at her abilities. Her wavy, brunette, hair is complimented by her astounding fashion choice and she looks dazzling from the top to bottom.
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”