Zara's Legal Awareness: Ignorance Or Intentional Breach?

Zara, the popular fashion retailer, has been accused of breaking the law on several occasions. The company has faced lawsuits and settlements over labour laws, wage theft, disability access, intellectual property, and compliance with COVID-19 regulations. In one instance, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Zara for violating California overtime laws and failing to provide proper meal and rest breaks for employees. Additionally, Zara has been criticised for its treatment of workers, including underpayment and poor working conditions. The company has also faced backlash for its environmental practices and the sustainability of its garments. With a presence in various countries, Zara has had to navigate different legal systems and customer expectations, sometimes resulting in controversial decisions and public relations disasters.

Labour laws: California overtime laws and wage theft

California has strict labour laws regarding overtime pay and wage theft. Under the California Labor Code 510, non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime pay at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for:

• Working more than eight hours in a single workday.
• Working more than 40 hours in a workweek.
• Working more than six consecutive days in a workweek.

Additionally, employees must be paid double their regular rate of pay for:

• Working more than 12 hours in a single workday.
• Working more than eight hours on the seventh consecutive day in a workweek.

California also mandates that employees who work more than five hours in a day must be provided with a 30-minute unpaid meal break. If an employee works more than 10 hours in a day, they are entitled to another 30-minute meal break. Employees are also entitled to a paid 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked.

In the case of Zara, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in 2018, alleging that they failed to pay their employees according to California overtime laws. The lawsuit claimed that Zara did not properly calculate and pay overtime compensation for their hourly employees and failed to provide required meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit also alleged that Zara paid non-exempt employees based on their performance, but did not include this incentive wage compensation as part of their "regular rate of pay" when calculating overtime compensation. As a result, these non-exempt employees were underpaid for overtime work, violating California labour laws.

Accessibility: Failure to accommodate people with disabilities

Zara, the popular retail company, has been accused of multiple violations of California laws. One of the most prominent issues is the alleged failure to accommodate people with disabilities. This is a breach of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which mandates that employers with five or more employees must provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities to apply for jobs and perform their essential functions.

Zara has been accused of failing to initiate an "interactive process" to accommodate these individuals, which is required by law. This process aims to identify and remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from performing jobs they are qualified for with reasonable accommodations. By neglecting this process, Zara has allegedly contributed to an inaccessible work environment that discriminates against people with disabilities.

The company has also been accused of unfair labour practices, including violating California overtime laws by failing to pay proper overtime wages and provide mandatory meal and rest breaks for employees. These allegations suggest a pattern of disregarding employees' rights and well-being, particularly those with disabilities, who may have specific needs that are not being met.

Additionally, Zara has faced accusations of creating a culture of customer discrimination, with reports indicating that black customers were disproportionately identified as potential thieves and labelled as "special orders". This practice further demonstrates a lack of regard for inclusivity and accessibility in Zara's business practices, contributing to an environment that fails to accommodate and respect individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those with disabilities.

To comply with the law and promote inclusivity, Zara must take proactive measures to accommodate individuals with disabilities and create a culture that values diversity and equality.

Intellectual property: Stolen lace patterns and trademarked logos

Intellectual property theft is a significant issue in the fashion industry, and it is often challenging to address due to the complexities of copyright and trademark laws. In the case of stolen lace patterns, the type of protection available depends on the specific situation. While copyright protection applies to creative works of expression, trademark protection covers business names, slogans, designs, and other identifying elements.

Lace patterns, as creative works, can be protected by copyright laws. Copyright protection requires a minimum level of creativity and typically does not cover individual design elements such as colours or fonts. However, intricate and elaborate lace patterns with artistic value may qualify for copyright protection. This prevents others from copying or using the pattern without permission.

Trademark protection, on the other hand, is broader and covers elements that cannot be copyrighted, such as designs, fonts, colours, and names. A trademark must be unique and related to the specific goods or services provided by the company. Logos often fall into a grey area, where they may be protected by both copyright and trademark laws.

To protect their intellectual property, businesses can take several steps. These include registering trademarks, utilising digital watermarks, and educating customers and competitors about the proper use of their designs. By understanding the legal protections available and taking proactive measures, businesses can safeguard their intellectual property rights and prevent theft.

In the case of Zara, while there is no specific information about stolen lace patterns, the company has faced legal issues related to other intellectual property concerns. It is important for any business to respect the intellectual property rights of others and take the necessary steps to avoid infringement.

Advertising: Inappropriate imagery and insensitive campaigns

Zara has faced backlash for its inappropriate and insensitive advertising campaigns on multiple occasions. One of the most notable instances occurred in December 2023, when the company launched its "The Jacket" social media campaign amidst the ongoing destruction and war in Gaza. The campaign featured a mannequin covered in thin white fabric, which many people immediately associated with images of dead bodies in Gaza, wrapped in Islamic burial attire.

Zara's response to the backlash was widely criticised as dismissive and insensitive. In their statement, the company explained that the campaign was conceived and photographed months before its release and that it was meant to showcase craft-made garments in an artistic context. However, many consumers felt that Zara was blaming them for misunderstanding the campaign, rather than taking responsibility for their insensitive imagery.

This was not an isolated incident for Zara. In 2014, the company faced controversy over a children's shirt that resembled the Stars of David that Jewish people were forced to wear during the Nazi occupation of Europe. While Zara apologised for this design and halted sales of the shirt, their initial response to the more recent campaign was seen as tone-deaf and lacking in genuine remorse.

The insensitivity of the campaign and the poor handling of the subsequent backlash resulted in calls for a boycott of the brand, with many consumers expressing outrage and disappointment. This case study highlights the importance of cultural sensitivity and awareness in advertising, as well as the need for companies to take responsibility and address issues sincerely when they arise.

Employment law: Unfair treatment and failure to accommodate medical issues

In the United States, employees are protected from unfair treatment and discrimination by federal and state laws. This includes discrimination based on an employee's medical condition or disability. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are federal laws that protect employees from medical condition discrimination. The FMLA entitles employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for specific reasons, including their own serious health condition or to care for an immediate family member. The ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against people with disabilities in all employment-related activities, from recruitment to advancement to pay and benefits.

Under the ADA, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with disabilities, which may include modifications to work schedules or leave. However, accommodations should generally be granted unless they cause an "undue hardship" to the employer. The FMLA applies to private employers with 50 or more employees, while the ADA applies to employers with 15 or more employees.

In addition to federal laws, some states have enacted stronger protections against medical discrimination. For example, the state of California has overtime laws that require employers to pay employees for overtime work and provide meal and rest breaks. An employee who feels they have been unfairly treated or discriminated against because of their medical condition can consult a lawyer and explore their options under the relevant laws.

Frequently asked questions