Case 34: Looks Discrimination at A&F
1. What are the legal and ethical issues in this case?
The legal issue seems to be distinguishing between appearance and protected characteristics such
as race or color. If an employer wants to hire “attractive” workers, there are few laws preventing
that (Washington, DC’s Human Rights Act is an exception). However, if the employer’s
2. What is your evaluation of the concept of the “A&F look?” Have you personally observed this
concept in practice? Have other retailers used this approach?
I have been in Abercrombie & Fitch stores, and in my opinion, the evidence presented in the case
is largely true. A&F seeks attractive, white employees for its retail stores. I can understand the
desire for attractive sales associates—as shallow as physical appearance is as a basis for making
judgments about people, it is a fact of life that people do so. And certainly models and actors are
hired for advertisements of the brand based on their looks. However, if the definition of
3. Are the employment practices of A&F intended to be discriminatory? Are they unfair? What
ethical principles or precepts guide your analysis?
Answers to questions #1 and #2 effectively answer this question. If A&F’s hiring practices
systematically exclude nonwhite races, then they are discriminatory and unfair. The relevant
ethical principle is the duty to make judgments about people based on factors relevant to the
situation at hand, and to factors over which the person has a degree of control. Although
4. Did the EEOC go too far in naming specific groups about who employers should be
particularly sensitive? Could this have been a political decision?
Yes, it seems discriminatory to specify certain groups. The EEOC specified persons who are or