Cristina Daniela Baica, of Romanian origin, accused the economist of having discriminated against her because of her physical appearance and filed a complaint with Conapred.
Lorenzo Lazo widower of Edith Gonzalez , sent a statement signed by your legal team, Schutte & Delsol Gojon Abogados, in order to deal with the recent signs of discrimination of which it has been subject.RELATED
Last week, Cristina Daniela Baica He pointed out that he had committed discriminatory acts against her. According to the version of the woman of Romanian origin, they communicated by WhatsApp in order to make a photo shoot of which she would be a model.
“He suggested that I go to a hotel … I told him before I saw him that he had a few extra kilos and he told me there was no problem,” said the woman in an interview for the program Come the joy on February 11th.
“When I saw him, he was shocked, like he was very disgusted. He told me he was disgusted because he was very fat. He told me that my hair was disgusting and I felt very discriminated,” he said.
Cristina Daniela Baica He has a disability in his feet as a result of a vaccine that was applied to him in childhood and accused Lorenzo of having also discriminated against him for that condition.
The woman said that, given the widower’s rejection of Edith Gonzalez, she offered to pay him for the photo shoot, to which he allegedly replied: “He said ‘It’s not necessary, I don’t want anything, you’re too fat’ and it made him sick.”
The woman said that after what happened, she suffered a severe nervous breakdown that caused her to faint in the hospital. He also filed a formal complaint with the National Council to Prevent Discrimination (Conapred).
Now, the legal team Lorenzo Lazo announced the position of the economist. In the document “reserves the right to exercise the actions that the law provides for your benefit.”
In the first point of the statement, Tie and his lawyers specify that an answer has already been given to the complaint that Cristina Daniela Baica filed before Conapred.
As a second point, it is clarified that the economist “never expressed any comment of an offensive or discriminatory nature due to the physical characteristics of the person cited.”