Disabled woman didn't have right "look"
Quit after being forced to work in store room
Abercrombie & Fitch made to pay
A BRITISH woman with a prosthetic arm has won her case for wrongful dismissal against US clothing store Abercrombie & Fitch, after she claimed she was harrassed because of her disability.
Riam Dean, a 22-year-old law graduate who was born with no left forearm, says she was forced to work in the store's stock room because she did not fit the company's strict "look" policy.
She resigned following the row, and during an employment hearing in central London accused company employees of "bullying" and "debasement".
The tribunal today awarded her a total of £9000 (more than $17,800) - £7800 ($15,400) compensation for injury to her feelings, £1077 ($2130) for loss of earnings and £136 ($269) for wrongful dismissal.
However, the tribunal did not uphold her claim for disability discrimination against the clothing giant, a favourite with teenagers and twentysomethings.
Courier Mail, 26 Jan 2009 Ms Dean says she was given permission to wear a cardigan to cover her arm when she was first hired in June 2008, before being told a few days later the garment did not comply with the firm's dress code.
She was told to work behind the scenes until the winter uniform which covered the arms arrived, she said.
Ms Dean worked at Abercrombie & Fitch's flagship London store, where shoppers are greeted by male models stripped to the waist and browse for clothes in a dimly-lit nightclub-style atmosphere.
She told the tribunal she "wasn't the same person" and "didn't want to socialise" after leaving her job.
Abercrombie & Fitch had insisted that it operated a strong anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy for staff members.
The tribunal said in its ruling that it was "satisfied that the reason for the claimant's dismissal was her breach of the 'look' policy".
It said: "Whilst the tribunal is satisfied that the claimant's dismissal was a consequence of her unlawful harassment, for which she should be compensated, it cannot be characterised as an act of direct disability discrimination."
