Last week, we brought you the story of Fata Lemes, a Bosnian woman living in England who is suing her former employer (a bar) for forcing her to wear a "revealing" outfit.
As we suspsected, the sensationalized Telegraph exclusive story about Lemes was, of course, sensationalized... and that Lemes would respond with the real story...
An anonymous commenter, possibly Fata herself, directed us to Fata's blog over the weekend:
The case has nothing to do with any religion.
Do you want your sisters looking like whores serving men?
Not necessarily, no, but we're not sure the dress was "whorish" either, even by the conservative movement's extreme standards. However, the problem with these kinds of cases is that one person's skank is another person's Sunday best-- and suing an employer for having a uniform that, for example, shows a slice of a person's back, is going to baffle most people.
So, Ms. Lemes, you'll forgive us for not siding with you immediately on this one-- until now, when we read your side of the story, which the Telegraph embellished beyond all recognition. Here's how Lemes's story conflicts with the original:
1) Her anger, refusal to wear the dress, and ensuing lawsuit had no connection to religion at all. She hasn't "felt religious since 1989."
2) It was not until her fourth shift that she was given an alternative uniform and asked to wear it. When she was hired, she had a simple black shirt to wear and it was accepted. If this is true, then no wonder she was offended-- that's a clear bait-and-switch reversal of the agreement she entered into with her employer and she had every right to refuse for any reason.
3) She only took action against Rocket (the bar in question) after they allegedly refused to pay her for her four shifts. Lemes insists she isn't likely to have brought suit against the establishment had the simply followed the rules and sent her a check.
You can read the rest of Fata Lemes's response on her blog, which appears to have been created specifically for this purpose.
Related: