Martina Strazzer responds to the accusations, here's why Sara was fired (her truth)
Image created with AI
The case surrounding Martina Strazzer , founder of Amabile Jewels , continues to spark controversy. After weeks of silence and increasingly harsh criticism, the entrepreneur has decided to break her silence with a series of videos posted on social media (3 reels). In this lengthy account, Strazzer reconstructed, step by step, the events that led to the contract failure of Sara , the former employee hired while pregnant. Her stated goal: to publicly clarify the reasons for the decision, defend the company's reputation, and respond to those who have accused her of violating the values of female empowerment she has repeatedly championed.
Martina responds to Charlotte Matteini's inquiry
The statements come just days after the publication of Charlotte Matteini's journalistic investigation , which highlighted the contradictions between Amabile's communication of values and the handling of the case. The article sparked a heated debate on the topic of purpose washing , or the instrumental use of social issues such as maternity and empowerment to bolster a company's image.
In her statement, Strazzer acknowledged that she had announced Sara's hiring with perhaps excessive and "at times inappropriate" enthusiasm, but denied any calculated marketing strategy. The decision to hire a pregnant woman, she reiterated, was motivated by the belief that motherhood shouldn't represent a professional obstacle. According to the entrepreneur, if the intent had truly been to exploit the situation solely for image purposes, it would have been illogical to not renew the contract and thus compromise the very message.
Her truth: why Sara was fired
In her lengthy statement, Martina Strazzer chose to reconstruct, point by point, the reasons that, in her opinion, led to the non-renewal of Sara's contract . The founder of Amabile Jewels firmly rejected the idea of a maternity-related dismissal, emphasizing instead professional and managerial issues. Her account touches on various aspects: from her perceived lack of transparency in her CV, to the errors found in her work, to the meetings held to discuss the critical issues. This detailed narrative seeks to debunk accusations of lack of clarity and inconsistency with the brand's values.
Curriculum and declared skills
According to Martina Strazzer, Sara's resume and LinkedIn profile did not accurately represent her professional experience. Despite mentioning many years of work, the employee had only actually held the position she had applied for at Amabile in the last few months. Furthermore, shortly after she resigned from her previous job, serious accounting errors were discovered that had jeopardized the tax reporting of the companies she was supporting. Not 80 companies as stated in the interview, but fewer than ten.
Repeated errors in Amabile
The critical issues , Strazzer explained, weren't just a thing of the past: similar problems had resurfaced within his company. This led to the decision to hold a series of meetings to assess the situation and assess the employee's performance.
Statements after the failure to renew
One episode the entrepreneur recounted concerns her farewell to part of the team, immediately after being told she wasn't renewing her contract . On that occasion, Sara allegedly declared that "she didn't need that job" and that she didn't need the salary . A statement that, Strazzer emphasizes, has never been reported publicly but which, for her, is significant for understanding the dynamic.
Relocation proposal
Despite the difficulties, Strazzer claims he tried to spare Sara financial hardship . Months before her final paycheck, she was offered support in finding a new job . However, the employee reportedly rejected the offer , as she was faced with a busy schedule of maternity leave, vacation, and a month-long trip to Japan.
Accusations already leveled at other employers
Strazzer also referenced an alleged pattern: at her previous company, Sara had allegedly made serious accusations upon resigning, which were later withdrawn because they were deemed unfounded. This, according to the entrepreneur, confirms the retaliatory dynamic in the Amabile affair.
Contacts during maternity leave
Regarding the allegations that she had made Sara work while on maternity leave , Strazzer downplayed the facts. It was said to have involved an hour of training that the employee had voluntarily attended, a few text messages and calls with colleagues, and a home check of documents she had taken from the office on her own initiative. As the tax deadline approached, a colleague politely asked her to return the documents.
Promises of indefiniteness
Regarding promises of a permanent contract , Strazzer denied any formalities. The only reference, he explained, occurred in a conversation lasting just over a minute, informal and conversational, in which he said that, barring any surprises, he would be happy to welcome her back. This was a statement made before the critical issues at work were discovered.
Communication of non-renewal
On the transparency front , Strazzer insisted that the reasons for the non-renewal were clearly explained. According to his reconstruction, Sara was summoned four times : sometimes to investigate concerns about her performance, sometimes to discuss identified critical issues, and finally in a final two-hour meeting with documents in hand. Strazzer highlighted the contradiction between the accusations of "too many meetings" and those of "lack of explanation."
Employee awareness
In the final conversation, according to Strazzer, Sara herself admitted that Amabile's accounting was "more complex" than what she was previously familiar with. For the entrepreneur, this demonstrates that the employee was fully aware of the reasons behind the contract's non-renewal.
The other accusations and Martina Strazzer's response
After explaining her version of events surrounding Sara's contract failure , Martina Strazzer also addressed other allegations that fueled the debate. From testimonies in favor of her former employee to her relationship with the journalist, the entrepreneur chose to publicly clarify the points she considers most controversial.
Testimonies in favor of Sara
Strazzer disputed the validity of the statements published in support of the former employee. He argued that the testimonies came from colleagues who held a previous role and location than the one held at Amabile. Therefore, they were unreliable in assessing the work performed within his company.
Relationships with the journalist
The entrepreneur reconstructed an email exchange that took place on August 11 , when the editorial staff requested clarification during the company's closure. According to Strazzer, the request required a response within hours, or the article would be published without the counterpart. She claims she preferred not to respond hastily to avoid errors, checking every detail first.
Contacts ignored
Strazzer added that, while he was still checking, other people had written to the journalist with statements favorable to Amabile. However, the contributions were ignored and reported directly to Sara, warning her that someone was trying to "expose" her.
The case is closed
Strazzer admitted that conflicts, mistakes, and misunderstandings exist at Amabile, as in any working environment. However, he reiterated his willingness to correct himself when necessary. He described the video as closing the loop , announcing a more cautious approach on social media and the decision to no longer respond to new accusations.
Find out more from Napolike.com
Subscribe to receive the latest articles sent to your email.