HR’s strange side: CEO fires ‘ugly’ people — is it legal?
August 3, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Terminations
Can the founder and CEO of retailer American Apparel legally fire people just because he thinks they’re ugly?
The controversy started when AA CEO Dov Charney issued an e-mail — leaked to the Web site gawker.com — demanding that store managers take photos of all employees and forward the pix to him for evaluation.
Charney apparently was reacting to a dip in sales by insisting that the problem was that the company didn’t have enough beautiful people working the stores’ counters.
According the the store manager who reportedly leaked the e-mail, Charney “is tightening the AA ‘aesthetic,’ and anyone that he deems not good-looking enough to work there, is encouraged to be fired.”
Further, the manager claimed average-looking people (according to Charney’s standards) would be put on a sort of probation, and fired if their performance and numbers weren’t near the top.
Not his first rodeo
Charney, by the way, is no stranger to controversy or the courtroom. He got sued by Woody Allen for using the actor/director’s image on a billboard. Charney and AA settled with Allen for $5 million.
He’s also been sued by former female employees claiming he:
- used crude language and gestures
- conducting job interviews in his underwear
- ordered the hiring of women in whom he had a sexual interest, and
- gave one of the plaintiffs a vibrator
Charney denied all the charges.
Now, here’s the question: Can a fired employee win a lawsuit claiming ugliness discrimination? Probably not, most legal observers say. There’s nothing in the law that protects job rights of the less beautiful.
Oh, and if you’re wondering what Charney himself looks like, take a peek here. Would you hire this man?
Tags: American Apparel, Dov Charney, Woody Allen
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
He should look in the mirror, then fire himself. He looks like a troll.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
As an FYI, you’re reading the story wrong. Gawker used an anonymous tipster for the story but there was no email corroboration. Supposedly he said this on the phone, but there is no evidence of this outside of the word of the nameless source. I would have to imagine that this is internet rumor as usual.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:19 am
This man is nuts. And how does he determine if an employee is ugly enough to get fired? Every person has its perception about beauty.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:53 am
The real question is why does this person get to have a job…as CEO no less!
August 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Dov, You’re Fired !!
August 7th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I believe this. I have been asked to discuss physical appearance with employees in the past. Even ask employees to wear make up……Wanted to punch CEO in the face over the nonsense.
People are judged on physical appearance everyday.
August 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Okay, the man looks like a troglodyte but has the utter gall and audacity to say his employees have to be good-looking? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what he finds “beautiful” may offend others. Someone should get him some therapy. Intense therapy.
August 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
How do this troll measure beauty? What right does he have? Look at him!
August 7th, 2009 at 11:09 am
While unethical, probably not illegal from an employment law standpoint. However, it may land him in hot water legally if the practice results in disparate impact of a protected class of employees, or, if and employee’s “ugliness” is the result of a medically verifiable disability, he may have a disability discimination claim on his hands. But, he may argue in court that a non-offensive appearence is an essential requirement of the job…..I don’t think he’d want to argue that in front of a jury unless they were all models!
August 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am
There are many jobs in the fashion industry that use appearance as part of the hiring criteria and this is really no different. Whether email, phone or verbal, his suggestion to mgt to consider appearance is withinn his rights. How a clothing store employee looks, especially if wearing clothes from that store sends a message. Customers want to ask for suggestions and they want answers from people who “appear” to know what they are talking about when it comes to fashion.
The guy is a sleazebag but in this case, he is not breaking the law; if it’s wrong for him to do this, then how can anyone justify the hiring practice at modeling agencies, casting companies or even restaurants like Hooters?
August 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am
SHRM had a session at their conference last year about “look-ism”… it is statistically proven that good looking people are more successful. It would be an interesting debate – is this the next protected class?
August 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I wonder…is there a relation between ugly people and sales……hmmmm…..
August 7th, 2009 at 11:48 am
i think he’s sexy;)
August 7th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Just one more way for ignorant jerks to practice legal discrimination. I shall make my statement against him by never purchasing a single product made by his company, I don’t care how many “beautiful people” he hires.
I have been on the receiving end of legal discrimination because I was overweight. The same employer was ready to hire me over the phone, and couldn’t wait to get rid of me at the face to face. Several years and 100 lbs later I applied again. This time I was hired. No one will ever convince me it wasn’t blatant discrimination.
So, if the “ugly people” have plastic surgery or wear more makeup, would that protect their jobs?
August 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Does the guy have a mirror? How about updating the glasses
August 7th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
He’s a Jerk! I believe he did all the things that he was taken to court for. There are some people that NO amount of money will EVER by them any sort of personality. He is insecure and forgets that beauty fades. Funny, his never faded, it’s just not there.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Do I hear the pot calling the kettle black???
August 10th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Does this really surprise anyone?
Do you think bartenders are all good looking women by accident?
Statically, women who don’t wear makeup earn less.
Men under 5’8 earn less.
Heavy women earn less.
When I was a restaurant manager I was told to hire a pretty popular girl because if I get one I’ll get more then I’ll get the good looking jocks will follow. This gal was useless! I was told not to fire her because it would make my black/white ratio off. I told the company unless they were going to give me a larger budget for salaries I couldn’t afford to have her stand there and be a pretty white girl (at that time I too was a pretty 22 yr white girl. Now I’m an over the hill white girl).
Currently, I’m encouraged to hire cute young things for our receptionist. I had to fight tooth and nail to get the 50 yr old with bad teeth hired. She’s smart and 3 years later she is one of our hardest workers and has been promoted twice!
Unfortunately, this happens everyday.
August 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
tHIS JERK IS NOT JUST PLAIN UGLY, HE’S UGLY TIMES SEVEN. HE LOOKS LIKE HE’S STUCK IN THE 1970′S. HE’S ALSO PROBABLY A FEW FRENCH FRIES SHORT OF A HAPPY MEAL TOO!!!!!
August 10th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
He has done nothing illegal – unpleasent, barbaric and shovenistic – yes. However –
If you go to a place of business and the sales person telling you what you need to look good is not good looking – will you believe them?
If you are shopping for oversized clothing and a size zero says that an item will look good on you (at size 20) you would not believe that she knows what she is talking about.
If you go to an athletic store and are just starting out an exercise plan – will you trust the advice of someone that is morbidly obese and can hardly walk?
August 10th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
While I don’t agree, I believe he can legally decide who he hires to achieve his desired “look” for the company. This is not an isolated incident nor is this the only industry where beauty trumps ugly – so I don’t think there are any unusual legal issues here.
Personally I find the opposite of his beliefs to be true – I am much less likely to shop in a store filled with “beautiful” people – intimidating if you’re not attractive and too much competition if you are.
Besides, I would prefer to have a competent knowledgeable sales staff to wait on me than some airhead they hired solely for looks.
Ultimately, I think, their dip in sales is due to clothes that are ugly, overpriced, cheap looking or combination of the three. The website is horrendous – check out the “new” Nylon Spandex Micro-Mesh Long Sleeve Mini Dress – now this transparent number is classy – just like its CEO!!
August 11th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I am curious if he will look at the sales numbers behind each person employed at the stores and whether or not the “beautiful” ones are the top sellers. I understand wanting to support his brand with a specific body type image but he may find that although the “beautiful” ones are nice to look at, some of the other than “beautiful” ones are actually his top sellers.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
How does he keep any employees? He fires what he considers undesierable / unattractive employess, on the other hand, it sounds like he sexually harrssess anyone that he finds attractive.
With his sparkling personality and “great looks” – it’s no wonder no wonder he’s had complaints filed instead of responses to his inappropriate advances.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
On Rebecca’s advice, I did visit their site in search of that very classy Mini Dress, and all I have to say is – 1985 called, and it wants it’s look back!!! Not only is he ugly, he can’t come up with original, attractive clothing!!
August 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I think he’s totally obnoxious and there are so many others like him and it’s nothing new. In the 1990’s when I was looking for a job in Manhattan, just about every receptionist I came across at these companies I had interviews at all looked like they were torn out of the pages of Vogue! Even weight is an issue, unless you gain it AFTER you get hired but they are trying to dictate that for certain legitimate reasons but regardless, it’s a personal choice. Remember, flight attendant qualifications back in the day? They were totally superficial. They wanted the total package. As far as weight and flight attendants are concerned, I think they have a point because it would be hard for a 300 pound flight attendant to maneuver up and down the aisles of aircraft easily and be able to do their jobs. Anyways, all this to say, everything is superficial either it’s blatant or subtle.
August 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Dov Charney misses the point altogether. AA’s sales are not dropping because he has ugly employees in his stores. It’s because his people are ugly to his patrons. I have never met a more snobbish bunch, who leave you standing on the sidewalk waiting for them to open the store 10 minutes after it was supposed to open; only to be treated like they would rather you not be there.