Turn Up Your Volume Follow Up
In following up with the previous article about a young deaf woman who felt discriminated against by a LuLaRoe retailer during her live sale, I reached out to several parties for comment: Amber Jones- who has not provided a response yet Amber's mother, Jan- who has also not responded yet Rachael Diffrient- one of the women that had contacted Marie (the deaf customer) about her issue with Ms. Jones. Rachael was willing to speak with me, but was concerned about the subject of her text with me being misconstrued or misunderstood. We elected to host a discussion on my internet radio channel HERE. This way, she could speak freely and felt comfortable talking to me, as she was worried that I was "on Marie's side" and may not be impartial and open minded. Our discussion is in two parts due to a technical issue with my phone. Part 1 is HERE and Part 2 is HERE Just after a quick chat between us about how the recording works, and that I'd upload it unedited and in its entirety, I began recording. Here's the brief recap for those of you that either are unable to listen, or rolled your eyes at the 45+ minutes... cliff's notes below: Rachael explains that she tried to see things from both sides, and admits that she probably shouldn't have reached out to Marie at all. However, she claims that her opinion is that both Marie and Amber were in the wrong. She claims to have seen Marie engaging rudely as well and felt that Marie was only trying to shed herself in the best light in the shots she shared. Rachael has chronic arthritis, and often communicates via voice messages with friends and family. She states that out of habit, she sent a voice message to Marie. Immediately after, she typed out her message. She represents that she remained kind and quiet during the message. She states that she is NOT defending Amber, and that in her opinion, Amber IS wrong, but she feels that Marie is attacking the individual personally, and not limiting it to business practice. She felt that this was wrong, and that was the reason she reached out at all. I comment that I also agree Amber was wrong. I explain that Amber's husband had addressed another deaf woman previously and explained that they don't stop their live sales, but you can shop album sales if you can't participate in the live. The woman responds that would be fine, when are the albums posted? The husband says there is no schedule, but once every few months is typical. I laughed at that, and commented that it was ridiculous to pass a person off like that. Rachael commented that she was unaware and that she agreed it was rude. We talk about LuLaRoe's opportunity to offer some kind of training on this topic- and I explained that they accidentally reached the disabled community because of the way the products are marketed, and these women are now able to participate in ways that they weren't before- and because of that, they should utilize this as an opportunity to coach reps on how to address situations like this before they get to this point. Rachael comments that she agrees, but this isn't a reflection of LuLaRoe yet- it's on Amber, and once again states that she doesn't side with Amber... but does not side with Marie. I asked if she could tell me or show me where Marie was being rude or whatever made her feel like Marie was also at fault. She goes on to talk about how this has escalated and how so many people are just saying the worst things to each other, and don't think about what is being said before they say it- and the weight that has on the receiving party. She advises Marie to find a new retailer. She feels that if she were her customer, she would do her best to accommodate her, but she should move on.
I interject and offer insight that businesses have to adhere to federal law, and I mention the ADA and confusion about if retailers own their own businesses- does she still think that Marie should just move on? She agrees that retailers should uphold the law- and Amber is dealing now with the backlash. It would have been so easy to accommodate Marie and that was a mistake. She said that she just feels the personal attacks on Amber as person are taking it too far, she's being bullied now too. I explain that I agree that bullying is never ok, and that shouldn't happen, but we shouldn't say that Marie shouldn't be able to post and publish however or wherever she wanted. Who are we to say what she shouldn't be impassioned about- especially since she lives this reality? Maybe she was sharing to try and save someone else that is disabled from the same experience. We don't know, but it's not ok to tell her that she shouldn't be able to share that. Rachael understands, and accepts that perspective. She then comments that Marie only saw that she sent a voicemail and the perspective was limited. I agree that now that we understand the reason behind the voicemail, it's easier to understand. We move on to discuss how Amber should have simply apologized, asked how to make it right- and that would make the ball be in Marie's court, and it would be up to Marie then to help resolve it. But since (as far as we know) Amber has not apologized to Marie directly, there isn't much to do but speculate. We talk about Amber's "official" statement, how I felt it was all over the place, not really an apology, etc. She probably is upset as well, can't think clearly right now... should take a step back and really think about how to address it properly. We move on to talk really quickly about the moderator of LuLaRoe defective sending her a message that contained a crude hand gesture and the comment "read my signing". Rachael had reached out to the admins of the LLR Defective group and asked if they would take down the post- and this was the response she got from the moderator, Jen. She continues that she got messages with people threatening to ruin her business, making comments about her husband and her children, threats, etc. Hundreds of requests to join her VIP group for her customers, and the bullying that has ensued- people telling her to go kill herself because she's "discriminating against Marie", when she simply felt that Marie was cyberbullying and publicly shaming- and that was it, she said. She doesn't side with either party. I comment that there is no reason to attack anyone's families or children, the threats are uncalled for- and most of the people bullying are probably parents as well and say those things just to hurt someone, but would also be horrified if they got those messages as well. I comment that the hateful messages detract from the defense of Marie. Essentially, you feel that Marie needs to be stuck up for, but attacking someone even more defenseless (like someone's child) is ridiculous. I comment that she probably shouldn't have reached out to Marie to begin with, but the extreme levels people are taking it to are uncalled for- and defeats the purpose of standing up for innocent people when you attack other innocent people. I comment that people lose their lives over cyberbullying and it needs to stop. She comments that she hopes to hear Amber's side of it too, and I said that I did reach out and I would be willing to publish her side or apology and I felt that more people would be willing to forgive if she did issue a real apology to Marie. I state (and she agrees) that Amber was wrong, and I do hope to get all sides so I can form a more rounded opinion. We chat a bit out having chronic pain and people won't understand unless they feel it- just as we don't know how Marie feels because we don't experience her life and struggles ourselves. Rachael states again that she just feels that she in retrospect, should not have reached out- she was simply sharing her opinion, and didn't think about the potential for it to be shared or misconstrued. In wrapping it up, she states that there are two sides, and we don't know what's happening in other people's lives- either of them, and we should stop spreading so much hate. I ask for her to send some screenshots of hateful messages to her, she says she will (I'll upload them later) and I thank her and close out the call.