Posted using ShareThis
My Take:
Hmm… a tricky one. Now, I do agree that sueing has been exploited; “tit-for-tat-justice” has become an American tradition. Personally, I don’t believe she was discriminated against based upon her religion and/or race. However, it's not hard to imagine why she felt she was a victim of discrimination. Based upon the article, it seems she was not accepted for the job based upon the fact her overall individual character not being in sync with the company’s image. YET, this where it gets tricky; that basis alone within hiring processes is a recipe for corporate dishonesty. It dangerously borders discrimination. Arguably, it is just that: indirect discrimination mascquerading as the company brand image. The highly popular American couture retail line Ralph Lauren has also been cited by the EEOC.
This case is either a long shot or will set a precedent. I suspect this’ll be a hard sell (on her end) in the court room b/c despite that fact that everybody knows post 9/11 America has turned an xenophobic eye towards the Muslim community; fact remains that Abercrombie & Fitch has, is, and will surely always be a brand image geared towards the upper middle-class, “All-American”, Anglo-Saxon, Generation X-Y consumer market…. and a characteristically Muslim/Middle-eastern girl simply does not fit into that company's brand image. Which reminds me of the term, “token black/indian/asian/gay/etc. guy or girl”. Tricky situations like this is where this term derived from. Apparently, some individual(s) are outside of the “norm” or tradition of an organization or group but are strategically placed there in order to appease a minority sector and by therefore achieving a politically correct image as well. It kills two birds with one stone and used as a clever marketing strategy. For all intense purposes, target marketing is intrinsically biased by nature anyway; whether the intention is racist or otherwise. Essentially, the manager in question was simply "doing their job" by complying with the norm. Nonetheless, it doesn’t seem to be a right or wrong here, but a question of business principle and ethics...
How much influence should marketing have in corporate structure and at what cost?