The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Discrimination and the Abercrombie "Look" Police

by David Doorey June 24, 2009
written by David Doorey June 24, 2009

   I’ve never been into an Abercrombie & Finch store.  But apparently if I did, I might be met with shirtless young men and a group of “young and beautiful women”, according to this story is the British Daily Mail.
The story describes a human rights complaint filed by a London law student with a prosthetic arm.  She was hired by A&F, but then ordered to the stockroom where customers would not see her after the company’s “Look” police (the  “Visual Team”) complained that she violated the “Look Policy” by wearing a shirt that covered the joint between her arm and the prosthetic.  Apparently, wearing a long sleeve shirt in the summer violates the company’s dress code.
If this had happened in Ontario, how would the Human Rights Code deal with?  The first issue is whether the employee was unlawfully discriminated against.   Do you think a dress code requiring short-sleeve or no sleeve (or no top!) discriminates against a person who has a prosthetic arm?  We are dealing here with indirect discrimination, or what the Code calls “constructive discrimination”.  Section 11 of the Code provides as follows:

11.  (1)  A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member, except where,

(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; …

Do you think this catches the situation of the woman with the prosthetic arm?  I’d think it is obvious that the fact that she has a prosthetic arm has led to her exclusion or negative treatment.  But assuming that the employer would have allowed her to work out front with short sleeves, the employer might argue that it is not her disability  that  led to her exclusion, but her unwillingness to wear short sleeves as required by the dress code.  In other words, her disability doesn’t prevent her from complying with the dress code–the picture of her accompanying the news story shows her in short-sleeves.  Rather, it is her own choice to hide her arm for personal reasons.  If an employee doesn’t want to wear short sleeves because he or she is embarrassed by, say, too much arm flab, it would not be discrimination for an employer to tell the employee to wear the uniform or quit.  Employee insecurities about  their appearance do not give rise to discrimination.

Would you buy that argument?  Or do you think that there is a big difference between the prosthetic arm example and the arm flab example?  Should an employer be able to insist on a uniform that a disabled worker finds embarrassing or degrading because of how it emphasizes the disability?

If the dress code does discriminate against the employee, the employer could argue in defense that the dress code is a bona fide and reasonable  because image (read:  good-looking employees wearing little clothing) is crucial to A&F’s business model, and that it is not possible to accommodate the employee without suffering undue hardship.   This defense appears in Section 11(2).   I’d think this argument would be a stinker in this case.  Even if a tribunal accepted that having young, slim, ‘pretty’ employees was an acceptable hiring practice (big IF), it’s hard to imagine that allowing this employee to wear a longer sleeve would cause A&F undue hardship.

What do you think about this case?

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Real Pleadings: CIBC Overtime Class Action Lawsuit
next post
Canadian Academics Weigh In on American Employee Free Choice Act Debate

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

TheLawofWork Follow

@ ·
now

Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter Like on Twitter Twitter
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gender
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.