http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/fashion/sundaystyles/10HARASS.html?ex=1121659200&en=68fdbdb3a4f38fe2&ei=5070&emc=eta1>
His Way Meets a Highway Called Court
By MIREYA NAVARRO
American Apparel's controversial founder is facing two separate sexual
harassment lawsuits from former employees.
Published: July 10, 2005
LOS ANGELES
THERE is no question that Dov Charney is an unconventional chief executive.
As the founder of American Apparel, the T-shirt and casual wear chain sometimes called an alternative Gap, Mr. Charney decorates stores with covers of Penthouse and Oui magazines from the 70's, admits in interviews to engaging in sexual relationships with women who work for him, and once exposed himself for an ad in a gay magazine, all in the name of personal freedom.
American Apparel promotes itself as "sweatshop free" and stresses that its products are "made in downtown L.A.," anomalies in an industry often criticized for outsourcing jobs and paying poverty wages. And consumers are attracted to the company's reasonably priced T-shirts and underwear, along with its hipster aesthetic of soft-core pornography, which have made Mr. Charney's business hugely profitable.
According to some former employees, however, sex is used for more than selling clothes at American Apparel. In two separate sexual harassment lawsuits, three plaintiffs who worked on American Apparel's administrative and sales staffs charge that they endured sexual misconduct and innuendo and an environment in which women did not feel safe.
The culprit, they say, is Mr. Charney, 36, a retailing maverick from Montreal, who founded the company in 1997 and now has 4,500 employees, more than 50 stores in five countries and annual sales of $250 million.
The suits, filed in the last six weeks in Los Angeles Superior Court by a sales manager, a recruiter and a trade show coordinator, accuse Mr. Charney of behavior that ranges from inappropriate to bizarre.
Among the allegations: using crude language and gestures, conducting job interviews in his underwear, ordering the hiring of women in whom he had a sexual interest and giving one of the plaintiffs a vibrator.
In court papers Mr. Charney denied all the allegations. And in an e-mailed statement he said, "In my opinion their lawsuits are a false attempt to extort money from my company and exploit my transparent persona."
His lawyer, Andrew B. Kaplan, said Mr. Charney "will vigorously defend these lawsuits" and that the evidence will show that no sexual harassment occurred. "What they're trying to do," Mr. Kaplan said of the plaintiffs, "is use Mr. Charney's openness about his sexuality as a weapon against him."
Even under the murkiest of he-said, she-said circumstances, Mr. Charney's management style runs counter to American cultural and business norms and has left him vulnerable to the kind of claims he faces now, workplace experts and some of Mr. Charney's supporters said.
For instance, he takes many of the suggestive pictures and body-part close-ups of women, some of them also employees, that decorate his stores.
And in an article in Jane magazine last summer, Mr. Charney was described as engaging in oral sex with a female employee and masturbating in front of the writer several times with the writer's acquiescence.
Mr. Charney, in a telephone interview, said that citing the article, as well as referring to his nudity in ads and his provocative photo displays in stores are "not journalism but sensationalism" when used in the context of the lawsuits. He said that he has the right to be his company's model and to pose nude, which he said is a "salute" to contemporary adult and sexual freedom.
He said his ads are regarded as trend-setting and appreciated by American Apparel's young customers. Mr. Charney added that "any sexual activities described in the Jane article were, A, consensual; B, enjoyable for both parties; and C, occurred in a private setting and therefore are not relevant to the sexual harassment charges."
Finally, he said, he does not believe consensual relationships between adults should be restrained in the workplace.
The women suing Mr. Charney and American Apparel are not alleging that he pressured them for sex. What they say in their lawsuits is that they faced a "wholly intolerable" and "intimidating" work atmosphere that subjected them to "egregious" sexual comments and behavior.
One of the women, Heather Pithie, who worked at American Apparel as a recruiter between June 2004 and last March, charges that Mr. Charney referred to women in vulgar derogatory and sexual terms. She says in her suit that she was "terrified" of being alone with him.
She said he once called her into his office with a co-worker and gave them both vibrators, saying, "It's great during sex." At another time, the lawsuit says, Ms. Pithie was recruiting in Los Angeles when Mr. Charney instructed her to talk to a young woman because she was "hot." He offered the woman a job on the spot, she said.
Another plaintiff, Rebecca Brinegar, who coordinated trade shows and worked in customer service between December 2002 and last January, charges that Mr. Charney exposed himself "in the nude in front of her." The third woman, Mary Nelson, 33, a sales manager from November 2003 to January, said in her lawsuit that he invited her to masturbate with him.
Ms. Pithie and Ms. Brinegar, who filed a joint lawsuit and are represented by Gloria Allred, the well-known women's rights lawyer, said they quit their jobs. Ms. Nelson, who is represented by Keith A. Fink, said she was fired after Mr. Charney learned she intended to see a lawyer.
Mr. Charney directed a reporter to staff members who in interviews said Ms. Nelson was a poor sales performer and that neither she nor the other women had complained of harassment before they left. (Their lawsuits refute this.) The employees said that some of the women's allegations seem to misconstrue or take out of context things that are done in jest or have a valid explanation.
Pat Honda, a customer service manager, said it is not unusual for Mr. Charney to be seen in his underwear in his office because he tries out products before they are introduced. "We're a manufacturer," she said. "We make underwear."
Alexandra Spunt, a writer in the company's art department, said crude language comes from all quarters. "We all use it," she said. "We're working in a creative department in the fashion business."
Employment lawyers not connected to the suits said companies risk not only litigation but fines by state and federal agencies for sexual harassment when they subject staff to unwanted verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that a reasonable person would find offensive. Allison Michael, a lawyer with Jones Day in Los Angeles who defends companies against sexual harassment cases, called the acts attributed to Mr. Charney in the lawsuits "pretty extreme."
Richard H. Koppes, also a Jones Day lawyer and a corporate governance expert, said laws governing the workplace have become more restrictive over the years, and that many companies spend a good deal of time making sure that "the tone at the top" is appropriate, ethical and legal. "It sounds like there's no adult presence at that company," he said of American Apparel. "The workplace is not a playground."
But there is little sympathy for the plaintiffs among at least some in the apparel industry. "If you're seasick, don't join the Navy," said Ilse Metchek, the executive director of the California Fashion Association, a trade group Mr. Charney belongs to. "Yes, he's a bizarre person, but that's no secret," she said. "It's there for you to see when you sign on for this opportunity."
"I couldn't work there, but I wouldn't even apply," she added. "Why would I presume to change the work habits of the owner of a private company. Does the name 'Hooters' say anything to you?"
Ms. Metchek said that publicity about the cases is unlikely to hurt American Apparel because of its young customer base. "Frankly, many customers want to be one of those models," she said, referring to the photographs in stores.
Until recently, about the worst criticisms hurled at Mr. Charney were accusations that he had resisted a unionization drive at his Los Angeles factory. He is often held up as a model for other manufacturers, winning entrepreneurial awards and government commendations for keeping all operations in the United States. He also offers above-minimum wages, health benefits, subsidized lunches and English classes for his workforce, which is mostly Hispanic.
Julie Su, the litigation director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, which represents garment workers, said Mr. Charney and American Apparel stand as an example that challenges the status quo.
"The point his business plan makes," Ms. Su said, "is that you can produce goods in the United States, pay workers well and still make a profit."
She said that if the sexual harassment allegations were true, Mr. Charney should be held accountable, but added, "It's a shame because it would take away from the positive he's done."
Employees like Ms. Honda and Ms. Spunt say they work in an environment that is "exciting" and "high-energy," fostering creativity and the feeling of being part of a unique and rapidly growing company. But some former employees say that they were also made to feel like sex objects.
Hannah Rappleye, an 18-year-old sophomore at New School University who worked as a sales associate in an American Apparel store in New York for about three months this year, said she had no complaints and left her job on her own volition last May. But she said she would never seek to work at American Apparel again.
Mr. Charney's first words to her during one of his visits, she said, were "You look hot today." And when she expressed her objections to a sexually explicit picture on a store wall, her colleagues laughed it off, she said.
"At first they make you feel special," Ms. Rappleye said. "If you were chosen to work for the company, that meant that you were attractive enough to sell sex successfully."
"But after a while," she said, "it feels disgusting."
His Way Meets a Highway Called Court
By MIREYA NAVARRO
American Apparel's controversial founder is facing two separate sexual
harassment lawsuits from former employees.
Published: July 10, 2005
LOS ANGELES
THERE is no question that Dov Charney is an unconventional chief executive.
As the founder of American Apparel, the T-shirt and casual wear chain sometimes called an alternative Gap, Mr. Charney decorates stores with covers of Penthouse and Oui magazines from the 70's, admits in interviews to engaging in sexual relationships with women who work for him, and once exposed himself for an ad in a gay magazine, all in the name of personal freedom.
American Apparel promotes itself as "sweatshop free" and stresses that its products are "made in downtown L.A.," anomalies in an industry often criticized for outsourcing jobs and paying poverty wages. And consumers are attracted to the company's reasonably priced T-shirts and underwear, along with its hipster aesthetic of soft-core pornography, which have made Mr. Charney's business hugely profitable.
According to some former employees, however, sex is used for more than selling clothes at American Apparel. In two separate sexual harassment lawsuits, three plaintiffs who worked on American Apparel's administrative and sales staffs charge that they endured sexual misconduct and innuendo and an environment in which women did not feel safe.
The culprit, they say, is Mr. Charney, 36, a retailing maverick from Montreal, who founded the company in 1997 and now has 4,500 employees, more than 50 stores in five countries and annual sales of $250 million.
The suits, filed in the last six weeks in Los Angeles Superior Court by a sales manager, a recruiter and a trade show coordinator, accuse Mr. Charney of behavior that ranges from inappropriate to bizarre.
Among the allegations: using crude language and gestures, conducting job interviews in his underwear, ordering the hiring of women in whom he had a sexual interest and giving one of the plaintiffs a vibrator.
In court papers Mr. Charney denied all the allegations. And in an e-mailed statement he said, "In my opinion their lawsuits are a false attempt to extort money from my company and exploit my transparent persona."
His lawyer, Andrew B. Kaplan, said Mr. Charney "will vigorously defend these lawsuits" and that the evidence will show that no sexual harassment occurred. "What they're trying to do," Mr. Kaplan said of the plaintiffs, "is use Mr. Charney's openness about his sexuality as a weapon against him."
Even under the murkiest of he-said, she-said circumstances, Mr. Charney's management style runs counter to American cultural and business norms and has left him vulnerable to the kind of claims he faces now, workplace experts and some of Mr. Charney's supporters said.
For instance, he takes many of the suggestive pictures and body-part close-ups of women, some of them also employees, that decorate his stores.
And in an article in Jane magazine last summer, Mr. Charney was described as engaging in oral sex with a female employee and masturbating in front of the writer several times with the writer's acquiescence.
Mr. Charney, in a telephone interview, said that citing the article, as well as referring to his nudity in ads and his provocative photo displays in stores are "not journalism but sensationalism" when used in the context of the lawsuits. He said that he has the right to be his company's model and to pose nude, which he said is a "salute" to contemporary adult and sexual freedom.
He said his ads are regarded as trend-setting and appreciated by American Apparel's young customers. Mr. Charney added that "any sexual activities described in the Jane article were, A, consensual; B, enjoyable for both parties; and C, occurred in a private setting and therefore are not relevant to the sexual harassment charges."
Finally, he said, he does not believe consensual relationships between adults should be restrained in the workplace.
The women suing Mr. Charney and American Apparel are not alleging that he pressured them for sex. What they say in their lawsuits is that they faced a "wholly intolerable" and "intimidating" work atmosphere that subjected them to "egregious" sexual comments and behavior.
One of the women, Heather Pithie, who worked at American Apparel as a recruiter between June 2004 and last March, charges that Mr. Charney referred to women in vulgar derogatory and sexual terms. She says in her suit that she was "terrified" of being alone with him.
She said he once called her into his office with a co-worker and gave them both vibrators, saying, "It's great during sex." At another time, the lawsuit says, Ms. Pithie was recruiting in Los Angeles when Mr. Charney instructed her to talk to a young woman because she was "hot." He offered the woman a job on the spot, she said.
Another plaintiff, Rebecca Brinegar, who coordinated trade shows and worked in customer service between December 2002 and last January, charges that Mr. Charney exposed himself "in the nude in front of her." The third woman, Mary Nelson, 33, a sales manager from November 2003 to January, said in her lawsuit that he invited her to masturbate with him.
Ms. Pithie and Ms. Brinegar, who filed a joint lawsuit and are represented by Gloria Allred, the well-known women's rights lawyer, said they quit their jobs. Ms. Nelson, who is represented by Keith A. Fink, said she was fired after Mr. Charney learned she intended to see a lawyer.
Mr. Charney directed a reporter to staff members who in interviews said Ms. Nelson was a poor sales performer and that neither she nor the other women had complained of harassment before they left. (Their lawsuits refute this.) The employees said that some of the women's allegations seem to misconstrue or take out of context things that are done in jest or have a valid explanation.
Pat Honda, a customer service manager, said it is not unusual for Mr. Charney to be seen in his underwear in his office because he tries out products before they are introduced. "We're a manufacturer," she said. "We make underwear."
Alexandra Spunt, a writer in the company's art department, said crude language comes from all quarters. "We all use it," she said. "We're working in a creative department in the fashion business."
Employment lawyers not connected to the suits said companies risk not only litigation but fines by state and federal agencies for sexual harassment when they subject staff to unwanted verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that a reasonable person would find offensive. Allison Michael, a lawyer with Jones Day in Los Angeles who defends companies against sexual harassment cases, called the acts attributed to Mr. Charney in the lawsuits "pretty extreme."
Richard H. Koppes, also a Jones Day lawyer and a corporate governance expert, said laws governing the workplace have become more restrictive over the years, and that many companies spend a good deal of time making sure that "the tone at the top" is appropriate, ethical and legal. "It sounds like there's no adult presence at that company," he said of American Apparel. "The workplace is not a playground."
But there is little sympathy for the plaintiffs among at least some in the apparel industry. "If you're seasick, don't join the Navy," said Ilse Metchek, the executive director of the California Fashion Association, a trade group Mr. Charney belongs to. "Yes, he's a bizarre person, but that's no secret," she said. "It's there for you to see when you sign on for this opportunity."
"I couldn't work there, but I wouldn't even apply," she added. "Why would I presume to change the work habits of the owner of a private company. Does the name 'Hooters' say anything to you?"
Ms. Metchek said that publicity about the cases is unlikely to hurt American Apparel because of its young customer base. "Frankly, many customers want to be one of those models," she said, referring to the photographs in stores.
Until recently, about the worst criticisms hurled at Mr. Charney were accusations that he had resisted a unionization drive at his Los Angeles factory. He is often held up as a model for other manufacturers, winning entrepreneurial awards and government commendations for keeping all operations in the United States. He also offers above-minimum wages, health benefits, subsidized lunches and English classes for his workforce, which is mostly Hispanic.
Julie Su, the litigation director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, which represents garment workers, said Mr. Charney and American Apparel stand as an example that challenges the status quo.
"The point his business plan makes," Ms. Su said, "is that you can produce goods in the United States, pay workers well and still make a profit."
She said that if the sexual harassment allegations were true, Mr. Charney should be held accountable, but added, "It's a shame because it would take away from the positive he's done."
Employees like Ms. Honda and Ms. Spunt say they work in an environment that is "exciting" and "high-energy," fostering creativity and the feeling of being part of a unique and rapidly growing company. But some former employees say that they were also made to feel like sex objects.
Hannah Rappleye, an 18-year-old sophomore at New School University who worked as a sales associate in an American Apparel store in New York for about three months this year, said she had no complaints and left her job on her own volition last May. But she said she would never seek to work at American Apparel again.
Mr. Charney's first words to her during one of his visits, she said, were "You look hot today." And when she expressed her objections to a sexually explicit picture on a store wall, her colleagues laughed it off, she said.
"At first they make you feel special," Ms. Rappleye said. "If you were chosen to work for the company, that meant that you were attractive enough to sell sex successfully."
"But after a while," she said, "it feels disgusting."
