User:Strawberryfresa/sandbox

Being bold is important on Wikipedia.

Forever 21 is an American chain of fashion retailers with its headquarters in Los Angeles, California and sales of $3.7 billion in 2013. Forbes ranked Forever 21 as the 122nd largest private company in America. From the initial, small 900 square ft. Los Angeles store in 1984 to over 480 locations in the United States and abroad today, Forever 21 has experienced immense growth. The stores themselves have also expanded, including 9,000 square ft. shops in malls and 24,000 square ft. XXI flagship stores. Forever 21 is known for its trendy offerings and its economical pricing. Women’s, men’s, and girls’ clothing, accessories, and beauty products are sold. The company has also been involved in various controversies, ranging from labor practice issues and copyright infraction accusations to religion.

The Chang Family: The Family Behind Forever 21
Forever 21 founders Do “Don” Won Chang(Hangul: 장도원) and his wife Jin Sook Chang (Hangul: 장진숙) emigrated from South Korea to the United States in 1981. The luxurious cars of those in the retail industry influenced Chang to enter the garment industry and so Fashion 21, later renamed Forever 21, was established. “Don” is the Chief Executive Officer and Jin Sook the Chief Merchandising Officer, with a combined net worth of $5 billion. As of September 2013, the couple ranked 264 in Forbes’ World’s Billionaires list and 90 amongst America’s wealthiest. Their two daughters joined the business in 2009, Linda leading the Marketing department and Esther in charge of visuals.

1984: The Beginning
Originally known as Fashion 21, the first Forever 21 store was founded in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 1984 by Do “Don” Won Chang and his wife Jin Sook Chang. The store is located at 5637 N. Figueroa Street in the Highland Park district of Los Angeles and it is still in operation, bearing the chain's original name. Trendy designs seen in South Korea were sold and targeted to the Los Angeles Korean American community. In its first year in operation, sales totaled $700,000 and today there are more than 480 stores that brought in revenue of $3.7 billion in December 2013.

Employee Relations

 * In September 2001, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the Garment Worker Center, workers’ advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit against Forever 21, charging them of violating labor practice laws. They claimed that 19 contracted employees received less than the minimum wage, that the hours on time cards were reduced, that workers who complained to the state were fired, and that the employees faced sweatshop like working conditions. Forever 21 denounced the accusations, asserting its commitment to fair labor practices and that ‘none of the workers named in the suit were directly employed by the company’. A three year boycott of Forever 21 was held throughout the United States by the garment workers. Although the charge was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real, Forever 21 responded with a defamation suit in 2002. Attorney Robin D. Dal Soglio asserted that both Forever 21’s reputation and its sales were impacted by the allegations and protests. On the other hand, Kimi Lee, the director of one of the advocacy groups that represented the workers, maintained that the lawsuits were justified due to complaints from 20 workers. Both cases ended in a settlement in December 2004.


 * In January 2012, five Forever 21 employees filed a class action lawsuit declaring they were not compensated for the time they worked during their lunch breaks and the time spent on bag checks.


 * After the Labor Department found that some of Forever 21’s suppliers had violated various federal laws on wages and record keeping, a subpoena was ordered in August 2012. U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Morrow ordered Forever 21’s compliance after the retailer failed to provide the documents. The retailer asserted that it tried to meet with the Labor Department and that it had provided the requested information.

Copyright Controversies

 * According to Forbes, 50 copyright violation lawsuits have been placed against Forever 21 by both well known designers and smaller ones. Diane von Furstenberg is one of the designers that has sued the retailer, insisting it copied four of her dresses. Yet, Furstenberg has also been accused of design replication. Gwen Stefani, Anna Sui, and Trovata are among the numerous designers that have also taken action against the retailer. During the first and only trial of the Trovata case in May 2009, the majority of the jury agreed with Trovata and later on, the two sides reached a settlement.


 * Critics, such as Susan Scafidi, a professor of copyright law at Fordham University, question Forever 21’s design process and argue that it is replicating the designs of others. On the other hand, Forever 21’s Vice President of Merchandise, Lisa Boisset, revealed that Forever 21 works with merchants and not with designers. CEO Chang expressed that some of their merchants have disappointed him. Forever 21 has never been found guilty and the majority of cases have been resolved through settlements.

Other Controversies

 * Forever 21 has received attention in the media for printing the Bible verse "John 3:16" on the bottom of their trademark yellow bags.
 * In April 2010, writer and avid Forever 21 shopper Rachel Kane created a blog with the domain name WTForever21.com. Kane posted pictures of some of Forever 21’s items and voiced her opinions about the clothing. The blog’s popularity escalated after being featured on the Jezebel.com blog and in June 2011, the retailer asked the blogger to take the site down or she may face a lawsuit.


 * The Center for Environmental Health found that Forever 21 and 25 others sold jewelry that included the toxic cadmium. A payment of $1.03 million and a 0.03% limit on cadmium in jewelry were part of the settlement that took place in 2011.


 * Lawyer Carolyn Kellman filed a class action suit against Forever in September 2012 after she received one penny less when she returned numerous items. Customers that received a penny less or were charged one more were included and according to The Huffington Post, “The threshold for civil actions in her court district is $15,000 -- meaning, she had to find enough people to join the case so that she could cite 1.5 million pennies in damages (that's 750,000 customers since 2007, in case you were wondering)."