No, we weren’t wrong to write the title… A few years ago a 47-year-old American chose to donate a kidney to save the life of her office manager, but she didn’t imagine what would happen next.

“I decided to donate a kidney to my boss and she took my heart”, the woman explained to the ‘New York Post’, after deciding to sue. “I feel betrayed. For me it was a horrible and very painful experience”.

Woman-crying

Debbie S. and Jackie B. met in the workplace in early 2009, in upstate New York. In June of the following year, the future donor (Debbie) moved to Florida. When she returned to greet Jackie several months later, she discovered that she was ill.

In fact, a possible donor had already been identified for the woman initially, but Debbie still decided to promise her that for whatever she would be there, she would be willing to give her a kidney herself. Meanwhile he asked to return to work with his manager … Request accepted.

In January 2011 her boss called her to the office and told her that there had been a problem with the donor and, not knowing where to turn, asked her if her offer was still valid. At that point Debbie did not have to repeat it twice and immediately went to get the checked for compatibility.

The results showed that she could not donate the kidney to her boss. However, the woman decided however to donate it (to a stranger) so as to allow her ‘friend’ to get on the waiting list, to receive the organ in turn. And so it was.

The post-intervention recovery, in August 2011, was not really easy, indeed, Debbie failed to return to work for a few weeks. This absence was not tolerated by her manager, who would have continued to call her frequently, especially annoyed by three days of illness that the employee had taken after returning to work because she was not feeling well.

After recovering, the woman received bad news: a transfer several kilometers from home, in an area nicknamed ironically by her ‘Siberia’ colleagues.

cry at office

In a panic, the American media reported quoting the papers sent to the court. Debbie consulted a psychiatrist and then turned to the lawyers who wrote a letter to the company. But the woman was fired.

For his part, the husband of the head office said that his wife did not fire anyone and that Debbie’s story is not true. The company lawyer where the woman worked also explained to the ‘Daily News’, which was not “productive” but “harmful”, therefore, she was dismissed for exclusively business reasons.