Old Navy Kicks Off Black History Month In Grand Fashion

#1
Lawrence Wright

Lawrence Wright

Troll Brother #1
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,920
Likes
19,571
#1
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...rarily-closed-viral-facebook-post/1082354001/

Black kid walks into an Old Navy store wearing an Old Navy jacket. Kid purchases some items and heads to the cashier.

Store manager accuses kid of stealing his own jacket and asks him to pay for it also. Manager asks kid to take off jacket so they can scan it, to determine if it had been previously purchased.

Kid agrees and allows store manager to scan the item. Following the scan, manager still asks kid to pay for his own jacket.

Kid refuses and demands the manager look at surveillance video to validate his story. The store manager and district manager check the video and allows the kid to leave without having to pay for his own jacket, offering no apology for the inconvenience.

Kid captured the majority of the episode on Facebook live, which went viral, and the store closed the following day (yesterday), reopening today.

Twitter mob is out in full force blasting the district manager, and both parties are now silent, presumably after lawyering up.

Stay tuned...
 
#2
#2
This is why I never wear clothes to a store where I previously bought them. It's also why I'm white.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#3
#3
n_huffhines said:
This is why I never wear clothes to a store where I previously bought them. It's also why I'm white.
Click to expand...

Well, there’s that. :)

But if you like shopping at a particular store, seems like there’d be a decent chance of wearing that store’s apparel when shopping for new apparel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
T-TownVol said:
So, the assumption is that this young man was only detained because he is black?
Click to expand...

That’s the assumption.

There’s also the question of whether or not the scanning of items to see if they had been previously purchased is actually store policy. And if it is store policy, is it enforced selectively.
 
#16
#16
Lawrence Wright said:
That’s the assumption.

There’s also the question of whether or not the scanning of items to see if they had been previously purchased is actually store policy. And if it is store policy, is it enforced selectively.
Click to expand...

All good questions and assumptions. Just seems a convenient way to try to bring negative publicity to a retailer.
 
#19
#19
T-TownVol said:
All good questions and assumptions. Just seems a convenient way to try to bring negative publicity to a retailer.
Click to expand...

In the absence of new information to the contrary, the store and district managers are primarily responsible for any negative publicity as a result of their actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
Lawrence Wright said:
In the absence of new information to the contrary, the store and district managers are primarily responsible for any negative publicity as a result of their actions.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the unnecessary news story and the customer are responsible for the negative publicity.
 
#24
#24
Lawrence Wright said:
Because your last post sounded like the work of a seasoned defense attorney.
Click to expand...
Or, more correctly, someone who spent 45 years dealing with retail customers. There are numerous incidents in which customers have faked falls, swapped merchandise tags, found strange objects in their food, etc.

Color me skeptical until I find out otherwise. You spend 45 years on the other side of the counter, and get back to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top