Hiring on the Basis of Looks: Ethics and Discrimination

Introduction: The Abercrombie & Fitch Controversy

Abercrombie & Fitch came under attack when it was found that many young, good-looking people were being offered jobs on the basis of their physical appearance. When the issue came to light, other complaints also surfaced: people from Filipino and African-American backgrounds reported having been rejected by the company because of their race. This gave rise to significant public outcry, and Abercrombie & Fitch acknowledged that it had been company policy to offer jobs to attractive people in order to improve sales.

Hiring practices have often come under fire due to discriminatory policies. However, while sex-, gender-, and race-based policies frequently lead to discrimination charges, people have yet to become sufficiently aware of hiring practices that focus too heavily on external appearance. This raises a fundamental question: is hiring on the basis of looks unfair, illegal, or even discriminatory?

It is easy to see that employing someone purely on the basis of looks is a form of discrimination against otherwise average-looking people. The question cannot have a simple yes-or-no answer, however, due to the variety of complexities involved. When Abercrombie & Fitch came under attack for hiring practices that appeared to exclude average-looking people, it triggered a broader debate regarding discrimination based on physical appearance.

As one account illustrates: "According to an attractive young woman, a student at [University], the same thing happens to her every time she goes shopping at Abercrombie and Fitch. On at least three occasions, store managers have approached her and offered her a job… Elizabeth looks like she belongs in an A&F catalog." (Carroll, p. 937)

Is Appearance-Based Hiring Unfair or Discriminatory?

It is clearly unfair to most people, yet almost everyone knows that it exists. In many professions, people are hired for their looks, and this is considered highly acceptable. For all other occupations, however, hiring on the basis of appearance is regarded as deeply unfair. As Elaine Hatfield observes:

"Most of us would be willing to concede that, in some occupations, it is legitimate for employers to make good looks a prerequisite for employment. For example, it seems reasonable that the Charles Stern Agency of Los Angeles would insist — as they do — that the men they hire for television commercials be over six feet, athletic-looking, and weigh 150–170 pounds… For most occupations, however, it seems unfair for employers to discriminate. Generally there is not an obvious link between good looks and competence." (Hatfield, p. 55)

People have also argued that hiring for looks is a form of sexual discrimination that tends to turn women into commodities. For this reason, companies need to develop hiring policies that focus on competence rather than appearance.

Why Lookism Gets Less Attention Than Other Discrimination

When discussing the issue of hiring on the basis of looks, one may wonder why it has not been debated as seriously as it deserves. Over the decades, it has received less attention than other discrimination issues. One reason is the embarrassment and humiliation attached to being rejected on the basis of one's looks, as William Raspberry observed in a Washington Post article. His observation was summarized in Time magazine as follows:

"According to Raspberry, discrimination against unattractive women is the most persistent and pervasive form of employment discrimination. Men, he argues, face no such bias except in the movies and in politics. Raspberry's sympathies lie not with 'mere plain Janes, who can help themselves with a bit of pain and padding,' but with those who would supposedly be working full-time if their features were more regular. Such discrimination, he insists, is all the more insidious because no one will admit that it exists. No personnel officer in his right mind will tell a woman, 'Sorry, lady, but you need a nose job and your lips don't match.' And a woman so insulted would not be likely to publicize it." (p. 8)

All employers fully understand that there is no link between good looks and competence, yet they may still unconsciously favor better-looking candidates, especially where public-facing roles are involved. "The employer may know there is no real difference in competence between an attractive and an unattractive employee, but there may be a difference in how they are received by the public or by clients that could mean a difference in profit." (p. 8)