- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I was reading this story on MSNBC and I sort of understand the claim that she was discriminated against. I don't buy it, but I understand where she might feel that way. What gets me is the basis of her claim to damages:
What back pay is she entitled to if she was never employed by the company? There was no obligation of the company to hire her and there was no agreed pay specified which would lead to no back pay being owed, as far as I can tell. And did her job search just end with a rejection from A&F company?
I guess more importantly, though, is the question: does a company who's marketing is based on looks and sells a certain "look" to a target demographic have an obligation to accommodate individuals who don't or won't make concessions to accommodate their marketing strategies?
Story is here.
The suit seeks back pay for the teen and a permanent injunction against the retailer from participating in what it describes as discriminatory employment practices. It seeks undisclosed monetary and non-monetary losses resulting from "emotional pain, suffering, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and inconvenience."
What back pay is she entitled to if she was never employed by the company? There was no obligation of the company to hire her and there was no agreed pay specified which would lead to no back pay being owed, as far as I can tell. And did her job search just end with a rejection from A&F company?
I guess more importantly, though, is the question: does a company who's marketing is based on looks and sells a certain "look" to a target demographic have an obligation to accommodate individuals who don't or won't make concessions to accommodate their marketing strategies?
Story is here.
Last edited: