Human Resource Management Policies Analysis: Forever 21 Case Study

This report examines the human resource management (HRM) policies of Forever 21, specifically focusing on policies that are detrimental to employees and the business. The analysis centers on two controversial practices: the refusal of meal breaks and the implementation of an English-only policy within the company's stores. The report discusses how these policies violate employee rights, particularly those of young employees, and contribute to dissatisfaction and a negative public image. The analysis references legal and ethical implications of these policies, citing violations of California state law and the potential for damage to the brand's reputation. The report concludes that such detrimental HRM policies can never be beneficial to any organization as it leads to unnecessary dissatisfaction among employees and loss of company’s image in the society.

Running Head: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Name

1HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management policies are generally meant to be in compliance with the
organization’s mission and vision and to be more specific must help the organization’s staff to
achieve their full potentials (Armstrong, 2014). However whenever these policies intend to
become detrimental to the organization’s staff it directly impacts their performance and the
overall growth and image of the business firm in the society. Supportive and motivating HRM
policies definitely help employee to boost their morals and increase their loyalty towards the
organization (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2014). However recently a
company who has been making news for all the wrong reasons and have lost its employees trust
and loyalty is the teenage fashion clothing brand Forever 21.
After being involved in copyright, trade dress, and design patent
infringement lawsuit by Puma now the brand has made news with its
detrimental policy of refusing meal breaks to its employees along with
unlawful English-Only policy at its San Francisco store (The Fashion Law,
2019), which was a complete violation of civil rights of the employees and was
backed with lot of criticism from its staffs. Both the policies seemed to violate
the very dignity of the employees and made them frustrated of being treated in
the most unjust manner.
While the detrimental policy of refusing meal breaks to staffs was
absolutely unjustified as the employees were asked to continuously work
without any compensation and rest. Forever 21 generally employs teens who
are just out of schools and are not much aware of their rights. Thus the
company takes undue advantage of this situation and exploit the employees.

2HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Thus this policy is detrimental to the staff but not to the business. While the only
English policy is detrimental to the employees as well as to the business as it shows its
intolerance and prejudice that in turn badly affects the organization’s image. Both the policies
lacked clarity and rather seemed very significantly unjustified. The employees complained that
even when the stores where empty, the staffs did not have the permission to take meal breaks or
even go to the loo which was highly injurious to health. The Department of Fair
Employment and Housing claimed that the English speaking policy was a direct
infringement of the Californian state law (Kemerer and Sansom, 2013).
A clothing brand working with a bunch of young employees need to
possess a more flexible attitude to help the employees grow rather than
slapping such irrational HRM policies serving no good to the staffs as well as to
the organization. Moreover the way the policies were wrongfully
communicated rather forced on the staff added to the trouble. For
instance the no meal break policy could have been altered as an extension of
work hour with added compensation while the only English speaking policy could
have been applied only when the staffs communicated to the customers as
many did not understand the regional languages, but the staffs complained that
they were verbally abused if they were found speaking in any other language
other than English.
Such detrimental HRM policies can never serve to be beneficial to any
organization as it leads to unnecessary dissatisfaction among employees and
loss of company’s image in the society.

3HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

4HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
References:
Armstrong, M. (2014) Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice, 13th ed.
London: Kogan Page.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2014) ‘HR policies’ [Online]. Available
from: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/hr-policies.aspx
Kemerer, F. and Sansom, P., 2013. California school law. Stanford University Press.
The Fashion Law. (2019). Forever 21 Sued for Allegedly Discriminating Against Spanish-
Speaking Employees — The Fashion Law. [online] Available at:
http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/forever-21-sued-for-allegedly-discriminating-against-
spanish-speaking-employees [Accessed 16 Aug. 2019].