The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) has lost its court battle with a law student who claimed the retailer made her work in the stock room instead of on the shop floor because her prosthetic limb did not fit with the clothing chain’s image.
Riam Dean claimed she was taken off the shop floor of the US retailer’s London flagship store because she did not fit with the company’s “Look Policy”.
A central London tribunal awarded Dean £8,000 for unlawful harassment and ruled that A&F failed to comply with employment law.
But the tribunal found that Dean did not suffer disability discrimination.
Dean, who has just finished her final exams at London’s Queen Mary University, was born with her left forearm missing, and told an Employment Tribunal that she was given special permission to wear a cardigan to cover her arm when on the shop floor.
But she told the tribunal she was later removed from the shop floor and made to work in the stockroom because the cardigan did not adhere to the strict dress code.
A&F’s barrister, Akash Nawbatt from Devereux chambers, claimed throughout the trial that Deans’ portrayal of what happened through her employment was inaccurate.
But the judge found that A&F’s handling of the row had failed to comply with employment law and Dean was wrongly dismissed.
She was awarded £136 compensation, £6,800 for hurt feelings and £1,077 for loss of earnings - much less than the £20,000 she originally sought in damages.