Everything Is Bullshit: The Greatest Scams on Earth Revealed by Zachary Crockett Page A

lawsuit
against Abercrombie & Fitch that described its Look Policy as
discriminatory. Their lawyers argued that a certain look was not central to the
essence of A&F’s business and the actual job of answering questions about
polo shirts.
    But Abercrombie & Fitch was not in trouble for hiring only hotties — the company was charged with racism. The
plaintiffs noted that A&F’s policy of favoring a “natural, classic American
style” translated to a “virtually all white” sales staff and relegating
minority employees to positions in the back room. A&F settled for $50
million and agreed to change their Look Policy.
    Even if they had wanted to, the plaintiffs could not have
accused A&F of appearance-based discrimination or “ lookism .”
There is no federal law against it. Companies can use attractiveness as a basis
for employment decisions in all but several American cities that have passed
legislation against it. This is true regardless of whether attractiveness is
central to the occupation (a stripper or actor), a branding or sales strategy
(Abercrombie & Fitch’s sales staff), or completely irrelevant (personal
assistant or software engineer). When a lawsuit does challenge appearance-based
policies, it draws instead on laws that ban discrimination on the basis of
race, gender, age, or disability.
    The most common lawsuits challenge companies that hire only
attractive women on the basis of gender discrimination since this would exclude
men and place obligations (in terms of dressing seductively) on female but not
male employees. Like the A&F case, these lawsuits draw on Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex and national origin.” The law is strict: Companies must
prove that their employment practices constitute a “bona fide occupational
qualification” that is necessary for the essence of the business.
    A strip club can claim that seductive women are the essence of
its business; restaurants and airlines cannot claim the same defense. In the
seventies, Southwest Airlines marketed itself as the “love” airline by hiring
only attractive female stewardesses who dressed in hot pants. (They also called
check-in counters “quickie machines.”) But in 1981, a man denied a job with
Southwest sued the company for sexual discrimination. Southwest began hiring
male employees after the judge ruled that the company’s purpose was not
“forthrightly to titillate and entice male customers.” Even Hooters, the
restaurant chain whose entire premise is for hot, scantily clad women to serve
men buffalo wings, fell victim to the law. It has kept
the “Hooter Girls” mainly by settling lawsuits out of court, but it has opened
more staff positions to men and women that do not require good looks.
    In more theoretical discussions, lawyers argue that the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act could be used to challenge appearance-based
discrimination in which age plays a role. Even more theoretically, they
speculate that the interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, while
not originally intended to protect people lacking perfect, tanned bodies, could
be extended to include attractiveness.
    But in practice, as long as a company is open to hiring
attractive people of every gender, race, creed, and age, it is free to hire and
promote staff the same way fraternity boys play hot or not. Despite the legal
sanction, Abercrombie & Fitch continues to seek out attractive applicants —
whether black, Asian, Indian, or Hispanic — and attract controversy for
doing so.

 
    Do Women
Benefit As Well?

 
    While
the halo effect has been demonstrated to help attractive people in many
personal and professional settings, the bias doesn’t always help women in their
careers.
    A 2010 study, for example, examined how attractiveness
benefitted men and women in different jobs. Attractive men had an advantage
over their plain peers across the board. But for