Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
TRENDING TODAY
Home > News > Life and Style > Fashion

July 29th, 2009, 11:23 GMT · By

American Apparel Fires Employees for Not Being ‘Hot’

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

Looking good is a prerequisite with American Apparel, store manager says in anonymous email
Enlarge picture
Following the scandal that American Apparel got caught in a few weeks back, when the entire online community and the media – including regular customers – criticized a series of ads that looked more like hotline commercials than as part of a promo campaign for a clothing line, CEO Dov Charney’s name makes headlines again, The Telegraph says. According to an anonymous email from one of the employees at American Apparel, one of the criteria used for firing and hiring people is good looks.

While it’s an established and even proven fact that good looks never hurt in terms of getting an interview for a job, or even further down the process, in terms of promotion and a bigger check, firing people solely on the grounds that they are what you call “ugly” is nothing short of discrimination. However, Charney doesn’t seem to preoccupied with the nuances of the term, since he’ll let go anyone who does not fit his standards of beauty because he believes such a person is bad for business, one of his store managers says.

“One week, he [Charney] went on a huge tirade and made stores that weren’t doing well send in group photos. Why, you ask? He made store managers across the country take group photos of their employees so that he could personally judge people based on looks. He is tightening the AA ‘aesthetic,’ and anyone that he deems not good-looking enough to work there, is encouraged to be fired.” the employee in question says, under the umbrella of anonymity.

If there is any truth to his words, then Charney’s latest policy is despicable at best, since he sets up a set of rules that have nothing to do with his employees’ competence to perform the task at hand, are completely arbitrary and discriminatory, outraged media outlets, both in the US and abroad, are saying. Firing someone because they’re not “hot” should never be allowed – yet that doesn’t mean it’s not understandable in the case of American Apparel, the aforementioned publication believes.

For starters, anyone who wants a job with American Apparel has to submit, along with their resume, no less than three photos of themselves to “show your personal style and how you present yourself.” Just by casting a single glance around one such store, one can see that people who don’t fit the pattern are not welcome. Based on this premise, lamenting that the AA CEO has started firing personnel because he deems them “not hot” shouldn’t come as a surprise, The Telegraph says, because looks are what the AA empire is built on.

“If you’ve ever been shopping in an America Apparel store you know the deal. You’ll be served by young, nubile, lycra-clad hipsters replete with those trendy, geeky glasses, tie-dye vests and bulky gold chains. The fingerprints of Charney’s idiosyncratic style are everywhere.” The Telegraph writes, adding that only a certain type of man/woman can actually make the AA items look this hip and cool. 


5,095 hits · 5 comments
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Eva Mendes: Fashion Is Tricky When You’re Curvy

Female Fashion at the Workplace Going Between Extremes

Pregnant Adriana Lima Steals the Show at Lunar Landing Celebration

Daisy Dukes Shorts – A Must Have, No Matter the Age

Spandex-Clad Kim Kardashian Opens the PepsiMax Bullrun Rally

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Stephen M on 29 Jul 2009, 14:31 UTC reply to this comment

What's the big deal? Looks aren't one of the protected classes for employment law (age, religion, sex, national origin, etc.). If it hires attractive people that may be less intelligent or more problem-prone, AA will suffer the consequences for it, and the president of the company knows that. He's making a decision based on his personal and professional opinion; right, wrong, or indifferent, who are we to judge him for it?


Comment #2 by: Wedo on 30 Jul 2009, 06:07 UTC reply to this comment

I think you have the timeline slightly mixed up. Gawker broke this story - rather jokingly I might add - with an anonymous source. Then The Telegraph blogged about it and that brings us to here. It's not accurate to quote the way you did, making it sound like this has all checked out and been proven. The source was vetted by Gawker, not a newspaper who would have much higher standards.

Although I wouldn't doubt that these companies do fire out employee looks, it's not right to jump to these conclusions or uses blogs as sources in such a way.

Comment #2.1 by: Elena Gorgan on 31 Jul 2009, 09:55 GMT

Hello Wedo. It could very well be that Gawker broke the story as you say, but what you’re missing is that I make no mention of The Telegraph being the one to do so. As you may have noticed, I did not jump to any conclusion, as neither did I imply that the AA CEO did, indeed, fire employees based on looks alone. The only thing I did say is that The Telegraph questions the correctness of the good looks “policy” assuming that what the insider / tipster says is true. That’s a big assumption right there, and the ensuing debate is based entirely on it.

Basically, the email says one thing and then The Telegraph goes and debates on whether such a policy is discriminatory or not, or whether it should be condoned or not. Personally, I take no stand on the issue because it goes beyond my job as a news editor. As reader Helen N also says, American Apparel is an awesome brand that makes awesome clothes so I have no interest in thrashing it because of one anonymous source, so I just stick to reporting the facts. Thank you for your comment.


Comment #3 by: Helen N on 30 Jul 2009, 17:56 UTC reply to this comment

I don't think it's fair to tarnish American Apparel's reputation just because some rumors are spreading around. From the beginning, this whole story has been founded on the unverified observations of one person who may or may not even be an employee. None of us know how much of this is even true, and how much is just malicious rumors.

Comment #3.1 by: L.R on 02 May 2010, 15:19 GMT

For those who are saying these are rumours you couldnt be more wrong, i had a short stint working for american apparel where i wittnessed a number of employees leaving the store and there was a definate trend in the way they looked, american apparel is changing their look from the bright basics to a more refined lacy/vintage type look. Those who had been fired in the store i was working in did not fit in with this brief and were well aware that this is why they were being fired, whilst been given reasons such as 'your performance isnt adequete' from management who didnt even work in the store and had no knowledge of their performance. There is no doubt in my mind that American Apparel is a very shady company

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM