The dismissal of 71-year-old cleaner, Janet Damiro, from the London School of Economics (LSE) has ignited a controversy, with her family challenging the narrative presented in media reports. They argue that the incident, involving a misplaced bracelet, has been grossly misrepresented, unfairly portraying Janet as a thief and neglecting the crucial context of her long and dedicated service to the institution. The family asserts that the university’s decision to terminate her employment was a disproportionate and insensitive response to an honest mistake, particularly given her age and proximity to retirement. They highlight the potential vulnerability of older workers, especially women of color in lower-paid roles, to such harsh treatment, urging a more empathetic and nuanced understanding of the situation.
The incident itself revolved around a bracelet Janet found on the floor during the final minutes of her morning shift in February. Instead of immediately turning it in, she inadvertently placed it in her coin wallet, which remained in her locker. A few days later, when questioned about the bracelet, she readily admitted to having found it, retrieved it from her locker, and explained the circumstances. The family emphasizes that there was no attempt to conceal the bracelet or deny having found it. They characterize the incident as a simple act of forgetfulness, not a deliberate act of theft or misconduct, which they believe the prevailing narrative unjustly suggests.
The family’s statement, released through PUNCH Online, expresses their deep distress over the portrayal of Janet in the media. They contest the accusations of wrongdoing, emphasizing the injustice and hurt caused by the misrepresentation of the incident. They also express concern over the potential impact this incident could have on Janet’s reputation and future prospects. The family’s plea extends beyond their personal situation, calling for greater consideration and respect for older workers, particularly those in vulnerable positions, and urging institutions to provide more support and understanding to long-serving staff members.
The family also addressed Janet’s interview with Metro UK, explaining that her intention was to raise awareness about her situation and the treatment she received, not to seek public condemnation of the LSE. They expressed their hope that the public and media would reconsider their framing of the story, acknowledging the potential damage caused by the mischaracterization of an innocent mistake. This, they argue, has transformed a simple case of forgetfulness into a public spectacle that has unfairly tarnished Janet’s reputation.
This incident has sparked a broader discussion online, with hashtags like #JusticeForJanet and #RespectElderWorkers gaining traction. The online conversation reflects growing concerns about the treatment of older workers, particularly those in low-paying jobs, and the potential for institutional biases to influence disciplinary actions. The case also highlights the power of social media to amplify individual stories and challenge established narratives, offering a platform for marginalized voices to be heard. The public outcry generated by this incident underscores the importance of due process, empathy, and understanding in workplace situations, particularly when dealing with vulnerable individuals.
As of the time of reporting, the London School of Economics has not issued a formal response to the family’s statement or the public outcry surrounding Janet Damiro’s dismissal. This silence further fuels the online debate and raises questions about the institution’s commitment to transparency and accountability. The absence of a formal response also contributes to the perception that the LSE may not be prioritizing the welfare of its long-serving staff, particularly those in lower-paid roles. The public awaits the LSE’s response, which could significantly shape the ongoing narrative and potentially influence public opinion regarding the institution’s handling of this sensitive matter.
