In a deposition, [Dov Charney, founder and chief executive of casual fashion giant American Apparel] said that during the time of Nelson’s employment he “frequently had been in my underpants . . . because I was designing an underwear line.”
“I’m very proud of the underwear,” he added.
In an interview, he also defended appearing in front of Nelson with just his genitals covered. “The demonstration of the” garment, Charney said, “was a product we were considering — and I was in fit condition for it.” He ultimately decided against putting it in the American Apparel line. “It wasn’t classy,” he said.
(A local designer “burst into laughter” when hearing Charney’s explanation from a reporter; per the New York Post, the garment that the LA Times is too prim to mention is a “sock on his privates”; per Dateline NBC, it appears to have a rhyming name.) Mary Nelson’s suit against Charney is docketed in Los Angeles Superior Court; he denies creating a hostile work environment or propositioning Nelson and claims Nelson was fired for poor performance (which Nelson, in turn, denies). This is the fourth sexual harassment suit against Charney, who won one and settled two. (Carla Hall, “Lawsuit has fashion mogul in spotlight”, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 17; Dateline NBC (via ABA Journal)).
6 Comments
The Red Hot Chili Peppers should sue. The sock garment referenced, I believe, first appeared on on the members of the band as they posed for an album cover in the 90’s.
I can’t take anymore of these abusive lawsuits. How was she hurt because her boss was in his underwear? Or because he wore a sock? She should be glad she had a job. She probably only took the job so she could file a lawsuit. She should be thrown out of court and made to pay Mr. Charney’s legal fees, which I am sure are excessive.
I saw this guy on some news show like 60 Minutes or 20/20. He’s a wild and crazy guy alright. Neither what he’s accused of, nor his defense, seem out-of-character to me. When he says he was in his underwear a lot because he was proud of it, I believe it. The interesting issue is, is outrageous behavior per se harassment? What about people who are just outrageous characters? Can we consider that what might be done by one person is actionable harassment, while the same thing done by another person is just colorful behavior?
To Gino: I think what’s relevant here is whether a reasonable person would consider this sexual harassment. The fact that Charney considers his behavior reasonable is irrelevant.
To sick of these stupid lawsuits: so public flashing by sketchy trenchcoat-wearing perverts should not be a crime? I mean, how are those people harmed?
Check out the allegations:
Nelson, 36, who worked for American Apparel for a little more than a year, claims Charney also referred to women as “whores” and “sluts” and invited her to masturbate in front of him. Nelson’s suit alleges she was fired the day she consulted a lawyer.
You are saying that isn’t hostile? You do realize that “hostile” does not only mean behavior that goes on in POW camps, right?
[…] Earlier this year Ted wrote an item titled “Implausible defense department” about American Apparel founder Dov Charney’s efforts to explain away jaw-droppingly colorful facts in the latest of the multiple sexual harassment complaints he has faced. The sequel is worthy of what has gone before: it appears that Charney faked an agreement to send the case to arbitration to conceal a deal in which he agreed to settle the claim for $1.3 million. The deal later fell apart and the case is headed back for (presumably genuine) litigation. (On Point News, Workplace Prof Blog). […]