I think the thing that really bothers me about this decision is that it
seems to be the type of decision that was used to weaken the ADA, resulting
in the ADA amendments act. Is there a possibility that a similar act will
become necessary "across the pond?"
Kendall
On Aug 17, 2009 1:26pm, Tamar Raine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> i wonder what A&F thought about the visual of her prothesis?
> Thanks,
> Tamar
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Tamar Mag Raine
> To see my newest articles:
> http://www.submityourarticle.com/articles/Tamar%20Mag-Raine-6019/
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.zazzle.com/TamarMag*
> www.cafepress.com/tamarmag
> Retired Commissioner, MCPD
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ________________________________
> From: Deri James [log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 11:27:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Woman with disability wins suit against Abercrombie and Fitch
> 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
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
