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."


here's the text cut from the article link I sent.

Riam Dean, 22, has sued retailer Abercrombie & Fitch for over $40,000 in  
damages. The former clerk says A & F discriminated against her because she  
wears a prosthetic arm due to congenital limb deficiency. Dean, a law  
student, says she was told that she'd violated the company's "Look Policy"  
and was forced to work in a back stockroom where customers could not see  
her. Riam was originally hired to work on the sales floor in the trendy  
retailer's flagship London store.



Ms. Dean says 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. The company handbook states that employees may  
substitute their own clothes for a uniform as long as the clothing  
is "Abercrombie style." The look policy also requires "clean and natural"  
hair as well as fingernails worn one quarter-inch past the end of the  
finger.

Dean, as instructed, wore a white cardigan while working on the sales  
floor. 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.

Then, recalls Riam, "A few minutes later, my manager came over to me and  
said: 'I can't have you on the shop floor as you are breaking the Look  
Policy. Go to the stockroom immediately and I'll get someone to replace  
you.' I pride myself on being quite a confident girl but I had never  
experienced prejudice like that before, and it made me feel utterly  
worthless. 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.That was the final straw. I just couldn't go  
back."

This isn't the first time Abercrombie and Fitch has been sued in regard to  
its Look Policy. In 2004, the retailer settled a lawsuit and paid over $40  
million to plaintiffs who claimed A & F discriminated against Hispanic,  
black, and Asian employees. At that time, the company agreed to recruit  
more diverse employees and add racial diversity to its catalogs and  
marketing materials. Abercrombie and Fitch has also been criticized for  
sending recruiters to college campuses to hire attractive members of  
predominantly white sororities and fraternities.



What do you think? Is Abercrombie and Fitch going overboard with company  
policies that force a young woman with a prosthetic arm to be hidden away  
from customers? Or is the company merely exercising its right to present  
its brand in the manner that it sees fit: Clothing worn by young,  
attractive, able-bodied, and mostly Caucasian men and women?


Filed under: discrimination, amputee, disabilism, employment, lawsuits,  
congenital limb deficiency, riam dean, abercrombie and fitch, amputation,  
prosthesis

On Aug 17, 2009 12:27pm, Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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 (ienot 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




-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy