SOC301 Week 3 Discussion 1

.docx

School

American Military University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

301

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfessorProtonWombat33 on coursehero.com

Each corporation not only has its own identity, culture and brand that it is selling, but they are aiming to reach and sell to a certain area of customers. When you limit your scope of who you are trying to appeal to, you tend to limit what employees you can hire to fit this identity. This ultimately hurts your corporation because you are not looking at the greater population, rather a small portion of it, in turn not maximizing your profit margin. As far as corporations aiming for a certain style, this typically falls into what most of us know as a uniform or dress code, which in this case should be provided by the corporation to the employer and should also be reasonable. In the case of Abercrombie and Fitch, they crossed legal lines by discriminating against age, religion and disability. In Riam Dean's case, I am not sure why a corporation wouldn't want someone with a prosthetic arm working for them if it doesn't interfere with the job duties. It doesn't interfere with her job and she even offered to cover it with a cardigan that fit the dress code, which she agreed upon with management upon employment (Pidd, 2009). This is a very clear example of how corporations can harm their own profits and reputation while also creating a negative appearance and legal woes. In Riam's case, as well as Samantha Elauf, the courts ruled in their favor of discrimination, and in my personal opinion, rightfully so. As I already stated, Riam's disability did not hinder her to complete the work tasks required. She also fully disclosed and came up with an agreement upon her being employed by Abercrombie and Fitch. So, at what point did her prosthetic and wardrobe become a reason to place her in a position that she felt discriminated against? According to the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Opportunity Commission, wearing a headscarf, no pant (only skirts), and a yarmulke should all be accommodated for religious reasons unless it causes 'undue hardship' on the employer (2014). Obviously, Abercrombie and Fitch could not prove that it caused harm to their business resulting in actions that were taken against them. I feel that it is discriminatory for businesses to exclude certain groups, but also in today's society, damaging to a company's profits. We have become a society that as a majority want inclusion and equality and are striving everyday towards that, regardless of the push back received from others. But on the other side of it, corporations are aiming to make money, and many times brand and portray their merchandise to a specific customer to ensure that they will succeed and profit to the best of their ability, while sometimes inadvertently discriminating or leaving different groups out of their marketing. But as far as employment, it should never be a question of the way you 'look' or fit the brand. U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Opportunity Commission. (2014, March 6). What You Should Know: Workplace Religious Accommodation. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-workplace-

religious-accommodation? (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. Pidd, H. (2009, June 24). Disabled student sues Abercrombie & Fitch for discrimination (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. . The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jun/24/abercrombie-fitch-tribunal- riam-dean

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help