Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Again, they did not "request" medical records or "request" an interview with a psychologist. After the Minnesota Department of Human Rights sued A&F, A&F, in order to defend the lawsuit, hired a psychologist to evaluate the girl as part of the discovery process. From a litigation standpoint, that's not at all surprising or out of the ordinary. (Though why A&F let this get as far as litigation is beyond me.)
I don't mind A&F bashing, but it'd be nice to keep the bashing grounded in facts.
|
Ok, A&F didn't do that, my mistake. But regardless, it should've never come down to that. This whole situation went so much further than necessary that the fact that all this "evidence" had to be brought in was still ludicrous in that context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
CJ, unfortunately, though you think an apology might be warranted, place that in context here. Mom is suing the company... so you would expect the company to just apologize and ADMIT guilt?
|
I take it you meant CG? If not, sorry. But Mom didn't sue the company until they'd ignored her for however long and she got DHS involved. They could've rectified the situation before that (beyond asking them to spend however much money they may or may not have had at A&F clothing to take home, try on, and cart back) and then there's a good chance there would be no legal charges to which to admit guilt.
Threaded Mode
