Deri,
OK, I guess I'll stop trying to make it into something it's not.... At
least it kind of woke up the list a little ;-{)}
Hope I didn't make any enemies.
Kendall
On Aug 18, 2009 4:15pm, Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Monday 17 August 2009 20:08:06 Kendall D. Corbett wrote:
> > Deri, Here's another article:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/oxynuo
> >
> > From the picture of Ms. Dean and the tone of her comments and the fact
> she
> > filed suit, I don't think she asked to wear the sweater. I think, as the
> > article states, she was _instructed_ to wear the sweater by one employee
> > (her trainer),
> >
> > "she was told during employee training to buy a plain white cardigan to
> > wear along with her uniform of jeans and a white polo shirt, in order to
> > cover up the join between her prosthetic arm and the partial upper arm
> with
> > which she was born."
> >
> > and then when challenged by others (including her manager), she may have
> > used the terms "granted special permission" to wear the sweater" to
> > describe her trainer's instruction. She describes herself in the
> > article "as quite a confident girl."
> >
> The new article is not well researched since it says "was sent to the
> stockroom because her prosthetic arm violated the store's "Look Policy,"".
> Whereas in her own words at the trial it is clear she was offered work in
> the
> stockroom so that she could CONTINUE to wear her cardigan, since "The
> Look"
> did not allow
> However if you look at the actual reports of what Dean said at the
> tribunal:-
> "Ms Barbera allegedly told Miss Dean she could only return to the shop
> floor if
> she removed a cardigan that the student used to cover her prosthetic arm."
> (Ms Barbera is her boss - the "allegedly" is because this came out from Ms
> Deans evidence).
> And further:-
> "Miss Dean told the tribunal, in central London, she felt "taunted" when
> her
> manager told her she could return to the floor of the firm's flagship
> store if
> she removed the cardigan."
> It is crystal clear that A&F only required her to remove the cardigan to
> continue work in sales. This is diametrically opposite to what
> your "blogger"
> wrote!!
> This is why its not a "disability" case (as the judge said), A&F have a
> stupid
> "look" policy, but were quite happy for a disabled girl to work in sales
> so
> long as she abided by the "look" (ie wore the same sales.uniform as the
> other staff).
> Cheers
> Deri
> -----------------------
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|