“Employee practices.”
“Sales allocation.”
“Start client.”
He shared screen.
Seven complaints.
The oldest fourteen months earlier.
A Black physician from Pasadena.
She came to purchase anniversary earrings.
Associate asked for identification before allowing her to view pieces, though company policy required ID only at purchase or for high-risk private viewing above a certain threshold.
She complained.
Vanessa responded in writing:
Our team occasionally applies enhanced verification when transaction context suggests elevated loss-prevention considerations.
Alicia stared.
“Enhanced verification?”
Aaron said:
“Not corporate language.”
“Store-created?”
“Appears.”
“Any policy?”
“No.”
“Next.”
A Latino entertainment attorney.
Arrived in casual clothing.
Asked to see a watch.
Was told inventory was appointment only.
Twenty minutes later, his white colleague entered without appointment and saw same inventory.
Complaint settled with apology and gift certificate.
Never escalated beyond district.
A young Black professional basketball player.
No one recognized him initially.
Security was called after he asked why an associate refused to let him photograph a bracelet to send his mother.
The call ended when another employee recognized him.
His agent complained.
Store refunded purchase? Actually he later bought elsewhere. Prestige sent flowers.
No formal bias review.
A Middle Eastern family visiting from Dubai.
Asked to provide passports before trying certain pieces because associate said “international purchases require documentation.”
Incorrect.
They left.
Complaint coded as “tourism communication.”
A white teenage influencer.
Refused access to a high-value watch because employees believed she was filming content without intent to buy.
Her complaint was logged normally.
Interesting.
Alicia said:
“So not every questionable interaction is racial.”
Gabriel nodded.
“No.”
“Pattern appears broader.”
“Status profiling.”
“Age.”
“Appearance.”
“Race may influence.”
“But not sole axis.”
Alicia appreciated precision.
“Employee issues?”
Sarah took over.
Five former associates interviewed overnight? Maybe too fast. Use exit records first.
“Exit interviews show repeated complaint that high-value clients were allocated disproportionately to Vanessa and two favored senior associates.”
“Commission rules permit manager reassignment when relationship continuity justifies.”
“How often?”
“Beverly Hills: thirty-one percent of transactions over one hundred thousand were reassigned within seventy-two hours of first client contact.”
“Regional average?”
“Nine.”
Alicia leaned back.
“Who benefited?”
“Vanessa personally did not earn commission as manager.”
“But store bonus depended on top-tier conversion.”
“Two senior associates benefited heavily.”
“Names?”
“Catherine Mills and Rebecca Stern.”
Catherine.
The employee who looked away.
Olivia had only been there three months.
Alicia asked:
“Any demographic pattern in client reassignment?”
Gabriel answered.
“Too early.”
“We’re examining.”
Daniel looked increasingly uncomfortable.
Alicia noticed.
“Say it.”
He looked.
“What?”
“You’re holding something.”
Daniel exhaled.
“I knew sales allocation was aggressive.”
“How much?”
“I knew Vanessa concentrated high-value clients among top performers.”
“Did you review numbers?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“Store was exceeding plan.”