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