Balancing Diversity and Qualifications: Analyzing Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters Hiring Practices

Abstract

Instructor’s Name Date Introduction Hiring is an important aspect of the success of a company. And in most cases, companies hire based on qualifications, diversity, or as part of their strategic workforce planning process. In the business realm, companies employ a strategic workforce planning process that aligns with their corporate strategy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) advocates that employment be based on qualifications prohibiting discrimination (Stoilkovska, et al 2015). Abercrombie & Fitch is a national clothing retailer while Hooter Inc. is a food restaurant operating in the United States. This paper provides a framework that describes the hiring practices of Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters analyzing, the strategic workforce planning process of the two companies addressing discrimination. Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters Court cases. In June 2003, a lawsuit Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores was filed against Abercrombie &Fitch for employment discrimination in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was pushed by a series of minority representatives who had applied for positions in the company but were unfairly targeted. The lawsuit alleged the violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Hirsch, 2015). The clothing retailer discriminated against Latino, Black, and Asian American applicants and employees. The suit alleged that qualified minority groups were discouraged from applying for positions and employees were deterred an opportunity to be brand representatives of the company. If they were given any opportunity, they were hidden from the vicinity of the public. The lawsuit sparked attention from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2004, and the country joined the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the case generated a national press coverage and integration in television programs. In December 1993, Latuga filed a lawsuit against Hooters Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for discrimination in employment because of his sexual orientation. He obtained a letter on the right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOP). Latuga v. Hooters Inc (1994) lawsuit conferred discrimination in employment based on gender. The male applicant was not hired as was waiter because the company’s policy only integrated female applicants. Outcomes of the Court Cases Abercrombie &Fitch Co. The lawsuit alleged that the retailer Abercrombie & Fitch "violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The court argued that the applicants ought to have been judged on their qualifications and not their color or sexual orientation. In 2005, the US district ordered the company to pay $50 million in compensation to afflicted parties (Fleener, 2005). The court also established a consent decree forcing the company to phase out the stringent policies of discrimination and hiring based on qualifications and diversity. The decree was a call for Equal Employment Opportunity as stipulated in the constitution. Hooters Inc. Latuga v. Hooters Inc (1994) lawsuit against Hooters Inc, upheld a defense on restaurant cases that conformed to the Bona fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). BFOQ Title VII states that discrimination is prohibited unless in cases where national origin,...