On Monday 17 August 2009 18:13:14 Kendall D. Corbett wrote:
> Deri, et. al,
>
> According to the original article (in June), Ms Dean wasn't
> "embarassed" by her prosthesis.  She didn't choose to wear a cardigan,
> she was _instructed_ to wear the sweater.  Here's a link to the
> original post I saw on Disaboom:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kkbcbx
>
> Kendall

Have you sent the correct URL. On that page it says:-

"She says that a member of the store's "visual team" then demanded she remove 
the cardigan. Ms. Dean explained that she'd been given special permission to 
wear it due to her prosthesis."

Which implies that SHE asked to wear the cardigan - the company wanted the 
cardigan off - to match the rest of the sales force.

This is confirmed later in the article where it says:-

"Afterwards, I telephoned the company's head office where a member of staff asked 
whether I was willing to work in the stockroom until the winter uniform 
arrived."

The winter uniform must have sleeves. So the facts are these:-

a) Dean was told she could not wear a cardigan on the sales floor. (failure of 
"the Look")
b) If she insisted on wearing a cardigan she could work in the stock room and 
then work on sales in the winter (when permitted by "the look")
c) If she had removed the cardigan she could have stayed on the sales floor!!

Where in any of this is there disabled discrimination, A&F didn't want her to 
wear the cardigan, rather than instructing her to wear one.

A&F got done for breaking employment law (i.e.not handling the dismissal 
properly - verbal warnings, written warnings, etc - but just "bullied" her). 

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