Black customers at Spanish fashion retailer Zara’s New York stores have been disproportionately identified as potential thieves, a significant proportion of employees surveyed by the Center for Popular Democracy have claimed in a new report released on Monday.

A survey of 251 employees and a round of focus groups conducted by the union-allied workers’ rights campaign group claims there is a practice within Zara to label suspicious customers or potential thieves with the code words “special orders”. Once a “special order” was identified and his or her location radioed to employees’ headsets, an employee would follow that customer around, the report claims.

Forty-three percent of the respondents did not answer questions referring to “special orders” or said they did not know the term.

But out of the 57% that did respond to that question, 46% claimed black customers were called special orders “always” or “often”, compared with 14% who said the same about Latino customers and 7% about whites.

Employees quoted in the survey claimed special orders were identified by “dressing a certain way” and were “mostly African American”, according to the CPD. One employee told the group he felt “that black customers were targeted when it came to stealing”, the report said.

One black employee claimed that when he had come in to pick up a check one day wearing a hooded jacket he was identified as a special order and prevented from entering a back office.

Connie Razza, CPD’s director of strategic research, said the code words used at Zara had now changed from “special orders” to a request for “customer service” to go to the location of the suspicious customer.

The report also claims that employees of color face unequal conditions within the company’s eight New York City stores.

“I was expecting some level of discrimination, but the degree of disparity with workers getting raises and hours that vary so dramatically was surprising,” said Razza.

The report claims:

• Black employees are more than twice as dissatisfied with their hours as white employees.
• Darker-skinned employees were least likely to be promoted, and received harsher treatment from managers.
• Lighter-skinned employees of color and white employees experienced better treatment within the company, with higher status assignments, more work hours and a stronger likelihood of being promoted.
• Many of the employees interviewed felt there was favoritism within the company based on race.

Razza said that while the retail industry was known for unpredictable working schedules and low wages, the situation was “even worse for black employees”.

The report, compiled from surveys conducted between February and April, claimed employees said that managers showed favoritism, and “many of the employees interviewed felt that favoritism is based on race”.

Such favoritism, they said, can have an impact on promotions, the distribution of work hours and management evaluation and treatment, the report claimed.

Of the 251 employees surveyed, 130 identified as Hispanic, 59 as black, 34 as white, 12 as Asian and 11 as mixed race. Employees were also identified by their skin color on a scale of one to four, with one indicating very light skin and four indicating dark skin. There are approximately 1,500 Zara employees in New York, suggesting one-sixth were surveyed.

“We found darker skinned employees were least likely to be promoted, and received harsher treatment from managers,” Razza said.

In some instances, the report claims, managers told employees not to take the survey. On at least one occasion, managers called the police on one of the employees taking the survey, the CPD claims.

A spokesperson for Zara USA denied any of the claims were accurate.

“Zara USA vehemently refutes the findings of the Center for Popular Democracy report, which was published without any attempt to contact the company,” the spokesperson said in a statement to the Guardian.

“The baseless report was prepared with ulterior motives and not because of any actual discrimination or mistreatment,” the statement went on. “It makes assertions that cannot be supported and do not reflect Zara’s diverse workforce. Zara USA believes that the report is completely inconsistent with the company’s true culture and the experiences of the over 1,500 Zara employees in New York City.

“We are an equal opportunity employer, and if there are individuals who are not satisfied with any aspect of their employment, we have multiple avenues for them to raise issues that we would immediately investigate and address.”

Referring to the claims about black customers being disproportionately identified with the code words “special orders”, it said: “We are a global multicultural company serving valued customers across 88 countries, and do not tolerate discrimination of any form.”

In a later statement, a Zara USA spokesperson added: “The expression ‘special order’ is a term used to designate a common situation in which associates are requested to enforce customer service and zone coverage on the floor. It does not designate a person or group of people of any category.”

Referring to claims about discrimination in promotions, the spokesperson said: “In its most recent round of internal promotions at Zara USA, approximately half were Hispanic or African American employees. In addition, approximately half of all hours are regularly allocated to Hispanic or African American employees. These facts clearly demonstrate that diversity and equal opportunity are two of the company’s core values.”

According Zara, approximately half of all Zara USA’s employees are Hispanic or African American.

The report arrives on the heels of a $40m discrimination lawsuit filed earlier this month by Ian Miller, who was general counsel for Zara USA Inc from 2008 until this March. According to the lawsuit, Miller – who is Jewish, American and gay – said he was excluded from meetings, given smaller raises than co-workers and subjected to racist, homophobic and antisemitic remarks because he did not fit the company’s “preferred profile” of Christian, Spanish and straight.

Miller also claimed his harassers were protected from punishment by company founder Amancio Ortega Gaona. He sued Zara, his former supervisor Dilip Patel and former Zara USA CEO Moíses Costas Rodríguez, under various New York state and city laws prohibiting pay discrimination, wrongful discharge, retaliation and hostile work environments.

Razza claimed discrimination pervaded the whole company.

“It’s a corporate culture that’s very problematic,” she said. “The lawsuit brings to light the depth that discrimination pervades Zara USA. Given the revelations of the lawsuit, we felt it was very important to reflect that it happens across all levels.”

The lawsuit and report follow a number of occasions during which Zara was criticized for selling items with racially insensitive designs. A bag embroidered with swastikas was pulled from stores after customers complained in 2007. In 2013, Zara sold necklaces with figurines in blackface.

Last August, the retailer was the subject of a backlash from customers for two different shirt designs — one striped and emblazoned with a gold star that resembled uniforms worn by Jewish victims in Nazi concentration camps and the second a white T-shirt displaying the words “White is the New Black”.

There is a recent history of controversies over alleged racism in the New York retail sector. In 2013, Macy’s and Barneys, two of New York’s most famous department stores, faced investigation from the state attorney general after several customers accused the stores of racially based discrimination.

Macy’s and Barneys both came to settlements for $650,000 and $525,000, respectively, in August 2014.

Razza said the CPD focused on Zara because of the company’s concentration in New York City and recent organization efforts by workers for fair wages at Zara.

Source: The Guardian