In other words, they put her on TV, said "look at this poor ugly woman, we're going to help her" and then did nothing.
I doubt this woman signed a contract allowing ABC to promote her to America as an ugly duckling in exchange for absolutely nothing. Had ABC backed out earlier, it's a different story. But since they used her image and publicly defamed her, I say she's due something.
SD
Given what is reported about the family, I doubt she is the type who would have had legal advice of her own prior to signing the contract, I doubt she read it herself, and I doubt she is smart enough to have understood it even if she did.
I am looking at this from a completely "legalese" standpoint.
Allow me to be a bit wordy.
ABC has high powered atty's write up a contract for this show. Desperate woman signs contract. After final consultation with the dentist, they find that her recovery time is too lengthy for their timeframe. One of two things would happen, regardless of the Jan 7th show.
1. Producers go to the attys, and ask if there is any legal ramification to letting her go. They look at the contract, say no, and the show lets her go.
2. Same scenario, only the attys say because of this or that, there would be some exposure in letting her go. They give her the surgery anyway, because it's cheaper than being sued, and just don't use her in the show.
If the contract left the show hanging over this, I'd imagine there are at least a couple of attys who will be fired.
If the producers did not seek counsel prior to sending her home, there will be some producers sent packing.
In my experience, prior to a lawsuit being filed, the Plaintiff's atty will send a letter to the Defendant's atty, giving them so many days to respond with a settlement offer, in an effort to avoid the expense of filing. Since this lawsuit was actually filed, I would imagine that ABC thinks they are protected from liability.
That does not mean that this woman will lose, however. As a matter of fact, she will probably win.
There are atty's whose entire practice is based around sniffing these cases out and approaching the individual. I would imagine that is what happened in this case.
Cases like this are worth the gamble. There is the chance that the big corporate will settle, just to make it go away. Plaintiff wins.
If it goes before a judge for summary judgment, the judge can rule based on the contract, he can rule based on intent (which is subjective), or he can rule based on "pain and suffering", which is also subjective. Odds are in the Plaintiffs favor.
If it goes to a jury, they can follow the contract only. Or they will feel badly for the woman, and award her a judgment anyway. Or they will want to stick it to big corporate, and award her a judgment anyway. Think tobacco settlements. Right? No. Fair? No. Yet they are routine.
Yes, I think what they did was crappy. But this woman was given an opportunity at the discretion of those who were paying for it. They changed their minds. I would bet the farm that the contract, written for them by their attys to represent their best interests, does not leave them exposed to breach of contract.
If it does, they are idiots.
If a contract is ruled unconscionable, then it is not enforceable.