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