Based on a conversation with a friend about my previous article, I am now moved by reason to almost completely reverse my position. Here's why: A&F is not an individual with natural property rights that can be aggressed against. A&F is a corporation. So, what is a corporation? It is a legal fiction. A file drawer someplace, regarded by the law as a legal entity distinct from its members. The reason corporations get away with all the nasty practices that earn them their bad reputation is that they enjoy a special relationship with the state in which they exchange legal protection for taxes and compliance. Their members literally enjoy "limited liability" which means they are not fully accountable for the damages caused by their decisions. That's the very definition of fascism, the material success of capitalism colluded with the legal immunity of statism. In short, they voluntarily consented to the law, so I see no ethical problem with holding them to it. Read More
CAIR has filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of Hani Khan, who was fired for not removing her headscarf. A&F has a history of legal issues surrounding their employment practices. In 2004 they were accused of discrimination against ethnic minorities for offering preferential treatment to whites, resulting in a class action law suit and a $45 million out-of-court settlement. Have they learned? In June 2009 they were accused of disability discrimination for hiding a one armed girl in the stock room and not allowing her on the sales floor, resulting in an employment tribunal and £8,013 compensation. In September 2009 they were accused of discriminating against the Muslim headscarf the first time, and now again. Why haven't they learned? Why is this "look policy" so important to them? Read More
