Freedom of Decision or Discrimination?

I'd like to open a juicier topic that we covered in ethics that I found very interesting.

We watched a video (we watch lots of videos) on Abercrombie and Fitch's employment practices. In the video, they were being sued for discriminatory practices in their hiring process, as they were being accused of racial profiling and discrimination. From their racey ad campaign, it was obvious that they had a bias of including caucasian males and females as models to appear in their clothing. The history of the company showed that they moved from a very conservative leisure apparel line in the 70's to a more sex driven, exciting clothes line seen today. Of course, all of the models used in the ads were beautiful and good looking, and very often it showed bare breasts and ass cracks and such. One controversial T-shirt that they had in their line was mocking the asian culture with a depiction of 2 rice farmers with smiling buckteeth saying "Two Wongs don't make a White". Of course it was lobbied heavily and eventually forced off their line of fashion (I'd love to get my hands on one).

The controversy carried on to it's regular sales workplace. After Abercrombie adopted this new image, there were cases across the U.S. reporting the firings of several asian americans, hispanics, blacks, and filipinos. These individuals obviously didn't fit with the white image that the company promoted. The thing was that the company didn't even try to make it seem like a job shortage. Many attractive caucasians who entered the store to shop were asked repeatedly if they would like a job there. One appalling story shared in the video was of a filipino male who lost his job at a store because the manager stated 'we have too many filipinos working here'. So of course a class action lawsuit was filed against the company, and the company lost and had to pay extremely high punitive damages.

My question is: To what extent should companies be allowed to pick out their workforce? Let me use an example to illustrate. Another clothing line label called FUBU, which stands for For Us By Us, is a clothing line that celebrates african american independence and is marketted specifically to african americans. When going through their stores, an obvious majority of the employees tend to be black people. Is this more justified than Abercrombie's mistake? Or is FUBU just as guilty of discrimination as Abercrombie is?

Even looking at it at a broader sense. Obviously race and sex are two clear cut qualifications in which you can't discriminate against without getting into trouble. But what about Hooters' policy to hire waitresses with larger chests for customers to oggle at? Is this justified? If yes, then is Hooters justified in measuring a woman's boob size before they decide on hiring them? If it's not justified, then could an overweight male get a job there as a server? Or if a bank is hiring for a teller position, and a woman with piercings and bright green hair applies. She demonstrates the necessary skills to accomplish the job, but the look obviously isn't quite right. Are they just in not giving her the job solely on the basis of her appearance?

The underlying question is how much control over their workplace should a company be given? At what point do we draw the line to recognize company policy to discrimination?