Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Racism Lawsuit: An Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Lawsuit: A Summary
What Happened and why it happened
Reward of Damages: Settlement of the Case
What I Would Have Done
Supportive Cases
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Abercrombie & Fitch is one of the biggest clothes line retailers in the world, an American based retailer that specializes in casual wear. The target audience for this retailer is youngsters that are aged between 18 and 22 years. Recently, this retailer has made efforts to acquire an international appearance by opening branches around the world. It has more than 300 stores in the United States of America alone.

The mention of this giant retailer evokes images of raunchy advertisements that full of sexual undertones. In fact, this company has reached out to their target clients using sexually appealing advertisements. This is a fact that is known and accepted by the American public.

It is a fact beyond doubt that sexual appeal and Islam do not go together. This is the reason why many people were surprised when Samantha Elauf, a Muslim young woman, walked into one of Abercrombie & Fitch outlets looking for a job. The lady went for the interview complete with a hijab, in accordance to her religious beliefs. As expected, she never got the job. The interviewers shamelessly dismissed her as un-Abercrombie like. She sued the company on grounds of religious discrimination.

Samantha’s is just one of the several suits that have been filed against this outlet that claims to be an all-American shop. True to its trade line, this firm has been accused of hiring only those individuals that reflect the true American image. The people hired are predominantly white, with minorities that are considered un-American left out. This is what has made this retailer the target of many lawsuits alleging discrimination in the hiring and treatment of their staff (Leung 4).

Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch remains to be the most widely known discrimination lawsuit that has been brought against this company. The case was filed in June 2003, and the claim was that this company has grossly violated the rights of the citizens as provided for in the constitution of the country. This is by adopting policies on its hiring and recruiting process that left out minorities and the women (Greenhouse 8).

According to Menkedick (8), this company has been accused in the past of maintaining a disproportionately white sales staff, favoring them by assigning them the most lucrative duties. Minorities such as Latinos, black Americans and others are discouraged from even applying for positions in the retail outlet. For the lucky few who happen to be recruited, they are assigned to the stores and the back offices, away from the view of the customers (Menkedick 6).

This paper is going to look at the Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores case within the context of business and corporate and business law. In this paper, the author is going to give a summary of the case, provide an analysis of what took place and why it took place. The paper will also provide information on the damages that were rewarded, together with an overview of what this author would have done in such a scenario. Supportive cases and the law that this case pertains to will also be provided in this paper.

Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Lawsuit: A Summary

The plaintiffs in this case were minorities drawn from the African American, Hispanic, Asian and other minorities groups that felt their rights violated by this retailer. The plaintiffs were once “brand representatives” for the retailer. But they contended that the duties they were assigned in the company were informed by their ethnicity rather than by their expertise and experience (Leung 9).

The total number of plaintiffs involved in this case was nine. The case was first filed in United States district court in the city of San Francisco. This was, as earlier indicated, on June of the year 2003. Gonzalez and the rest of the plaintiff were represented by several legal experts. This included the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Asian pacific American Legal Center (Menkedick 5). These were legal entities that have been known to fight for the rights of the ethnic minorities that they represented. Other legal teams on the side of the plaintiff were the Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernsten, LLP law firm (Leung 4).

The legal problems for Abercrombie & Fitch were compounded by the consolidation of this litigation with others that had been preferred against this company by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other two law firms. The law firms were Minami, Lew, & Tamaki and Kohn, Swift & Graf (Menkedick 8). This other charge alleged that the company discriminated against women and other minority groups in their employment, which was somewhat similar to the charges brought forward by Gonzalez et al.

Abercrombie & Fitch denied all the charges that were brought against it. The evidence brought forward was buttressed by the testimonies and stories on the ordeals of former employees that came forward to witness (Menkedick 8).

What Happened and why it happened

As indicated above, several former employees of Abercrombie & Fitch came forward and regaled the court with stories of their experiences as employees of the company. These stories are perhaps one of the major reasons why this case received a lot of media publicity in the state and in the whole of America in general. What happened as far as this case is concerned- or the issues surrounding the case- can be depicted by these stories. This section will give the experiences of selected plaintiffs.

Eduardo Gonzalez

This case was a class action lawsuit, with several individuals coming together to sue the company for damages. As already indicated, the above mentioned was the lead plaintiff in this case (Greenhouse 4). At the time this case was filed, he was a senior from Stanford University. He had submitted his application for a position at the company’s branch of Santa Clara store. He alleges that the managers encouraged him to submit applications for a night shift. At the time of the interview, he alleges that out of the 13 applicants in his group, two white hopefuls were openly favored by the recruiters (Menkedick 3).

The managers suggested to Gonzalez that he work on night shift, and on a non-sales position, effectively keeping him away from the customers’ view. He was convinced that the rationale behind this was the fact that he was a Latino.

Carla Grubb

This plaintiff was an Africa American student from California State University (Greenhouse 9). She used to work at the company’s store on Bakersfield Valley Plaza Mall (Greenhouse 4). She claims that she had worked there for only a short time before the supervisors started giving her cleaning duties among other menial chores. It was only a matter of time before she got fired.

Grubb was convinced that her predicament emanated from the fact that she was an African American in a company that was supposedly “all-American”. This is especially given the fact that she was the only African-American member of staff in the store.

Jennifer Lu

Jennifer’s story is perhaps one of the most blatant cases of discrimination in this company. She worked as a brand representative in one of the stores in Costa Mesa (Leung 4). She claims that one of the company’s executives visited the store one day and urged the employees to maintain an all-American look in the store. About one month after this incidence, Jennifer and five other Asian American employees at the store were relieved of their duties. As if this was not enough assault on the minorities, several African American members of staff were to be later relegated to the store’s stock room, where they were not seen by the customers (Menkedick 4).

Lu and her colleagues were convinced that their troubles were as a result of their ethnicity, and they were aggrieved enough to press charges against their former employer.

The narratives above point to the fact that discrimination at Abercrombie & Fitch was not limited to the hiring process alone. It extended to the treatment meted out at those members of minorities groups that were already working in the company.

Reward of Damages: Settlement of the Case

This case was settled on April 2005 (Leung 3). The court ordered the company to pay the plaintiffs approximately $50 million for the violation of their civil rights. The two parties arrived at what Leung (9) refers to as a Consent Decree.

The case was settled on April 14, 2005 (Greenhouse 8). This was by Judge Susan Illston who was hearing the case (Greenhouse 8). The monetary rewards to the plaintiffs ranged from a few thousands to several millions to some. The amount depended on the contribution of individual plaintiffs to the case and the amount of damage that the plaintiff suffered from the treatment meted out by the company.

The consent decree also contained some provisions that the company was supposed to comply with. Some of the provisions are as follows:

Benchmarks regarding the hiring and promotion of women and other minorities
The provision banned the company from recruiting from sororities and fraternities
The hiring of 25 diversity recruiters who will be charged with the recruitment of women and minorities

What I Would Have Done

This case had two parties opposed to each other, and I would have acted differently if I were on either of these parties. If I was Abercrombie & Fitch, I would have settled the matter outside the courts. The company denied all the charges against it, and this is the reason why the matter had to go to the courts. If I was the company, I would have accepted to settle with the plaintiffs. If the company had agreed to settle outside the courts, the other provisions of the consent decree will not have been catered for.

On the other hand, if I were the plaintiffs, I would have done exactly what they did; take the matter to court and fight to the end. This is given that an out of the court settlement might have favored the company and the consent decree may not have been there.

Supportive Cases

There are cases that have been settled before Gonzalez v. Abercrombie that can be regarded as precedents. These can be seen as supportive cases to the current one. Below is a brief analysis of some of these cases:

Adam’s Mark

This hotel chain was sued by the DOJ, Florida, for discrimination. This was together with some African Americans who had been employees of this company. The company agreed to settle for $5.9 million among other provisions.

Apple Computers

This company was alleged to have sacked an African American employee on the basis of their race. They settled for $40 million to pay damages for denying the employee promotions, allowances and finally unlawful dismissal.

Boeing

This company was accused of discriminating against black employees in the year 1999. The company settled for $15 million to cover for the damages.

Conclusion

Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch: The Law it pertains to

This company was accused of violating title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Leung 5). This law has been regarded as a significant legislation in this country. It prohibits many forms of discrimination especially against minorities based on their status as minorities.

Title VII of this law is the one that specifically prohibits discrimination as far as employment is concerned. This title states that employers subject to the law should not discriminate during employment and treatment of workers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (Menkedick 9).

Works Cited

Greenhouse, Steven. Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled. Web.

Leung, Margaret. 2004. Employment Discrimination Cases in the United States of America: Gonzalez v. Abercrombie. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 10:1.

Menkedick, Lorenzo. 2010. Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch: A Case of Racial Discrimination. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 9:2.

Click Here To Order Now!