www.nakedcompensation.org
Naked Compensation
Terms of Use  
Privacy Policy  
Subscribe  
The truth and nothing but the truth
(*terms and conditions apply) 
  Naked Compensation
  The Latest News
  Legal Creativity
  Train 2 Claim
  News Archives
Polls
  LAW CARTOONS

Latest:
Top Gear

Archives:
Mining Money

 RELATED ARTICLES
Crisps Making Alot of Noise
Pre-Injury Asteriod Compensation Claims
Science vs Religion War Over
Lawyering Up is Britain's Best Defence
Love, Cherish, Honour & Obey your Fanaticism
A Prime Number
Gimme Sama That Money
Fraudulent Claim Creators get Compensation
Christ in Court
The Day After The Day After Tomorrow the Lawsuits Begin
Well Cilla, I'm Going to Pick No. 13289
Like a Virgin, Sue After Your Very First Time
Freedom of Speech in a Catch 22
Abuser Keeps Abusing
Crocodile Tears
UK Booze & Cigarettes Moving to the Black Market
Climate Change Debate Heats Up


 

 

 


www.nakedcompensation.org
Bookmark and Share Size Matters

Designer in court over size discrimination:

The fashion world is still quaking in it's fluffy boots after last week's test case against a clothes home shopping catalogue was granted a continuance to obtain more evidence. The claimant, who cannot be named for fears of reprisal from fashion models, has to be measured by the defence team's own group of doctors to prove that the shopping network do not in fact supply the trousers in question in the claimant's size.

The claim itself uses wording mostly from the racial, sexual and disability discrimination acts along with excerpts from government legislation on equality in the workplace. Sue Kindly LLB from the law firm presenting the case attempts to clarify:

"It has always been said that discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in the UK. Here we have a customer who has been denied the opportunity to wear the trousers she wants because the manufacturer simply refuses to produce them in her size."

The response to this allegation is that it would be 'uneconomical' for the designer to produce them in that size because the customer in question has shorter legs than the majority of women. Ms Kindly elaborates:

"The bottom line is money. Because they won't make any profit from selling trousers in that size they force my client, and other women with short legs, to suffer. It's appalling really."

This case has caused red faces all round especially amongst the government think tanks that developed the wording for the anti-discrimination laws. We spoke to one government aid who said:

"Luckily, no-one else seems to have got ahead of us on this one so there is a chance to make amendments before everyone starts getting sued left, right and centre. It's strange to think that if the claimant in this case had been black, legislation would force us to criminally prosecute the home shopping catalogue for racial discrimination."

Lucky indeed as such comes with an automatic sentence of 18 months.

Bookmark and Share




Disclaimer: This article is completely false ... except for the parts that are true, but, probably just like the people involved, I can't remember which parts those are, if any, so best to just take the whole thing as nonsense. †

  The News Before it Even Happens ...
  Offering you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... (terms and conditions apply)
Latest News
MOST RECENT VIEWER COMMENTS:

 Read More Comments

Add your comments: †
0
Enter code:      Trouble reading this? Contact us  
» All comments are moderated BEFORE being posted to eliminate spam.
About | Contact | Sitemap © 2001-2017 Naked Compensation All rights reserved.