Posted on 06/02/2010 5:09:25 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
So not guilty.
And Laz would hit it no matter what.
None of those photos are necessarily representative of what she wore to work, if you read the article.
They even told her not to wear turtlenecks! C’mon! Furthermore, she contends that others wore clothing that is much more provacative! IT seems she was singled out because she looks good and dresses well, not because she was dresses like a slut.
I am getting an impression that you would like this woman to wear a burka!
It isn’t the case that they told her that her wardrobe was inappropriate. She was told that she should not wear things that other women at the bank could wear!
Well, it could be worse - she could be pointing it at another portion of your anatomy. :=)
Is that a bank deposit in your pockets, or are you happy to see her?
Read the village voice article that I linked somewhere around post#60. She wore clothes the same as others at the bank.
She was told to not wear turtlenecks!
For the wife of the banker (pure speculation) to have been happy with her employment, she would have had to wear a burka, it seems. On second thought - that probably would not have been satisfactory.
Given that stance, she could sue under the ADA since she has scoliosis.
Both. She was a relationship banker, not a teller.
Her bosses told her that “as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly ‘too distracting’ for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear...”
Speaking from experience, this is exactly the way old-school financial company managers think. Although usually, they just refuse to hire the “hot” woman in the first place.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-01/news/is-this-woman-too-hot-to-work-in-a-bank/2
It seems from the village voice article that she was hired precisely because she is pretty. The branch has a reputation for pretty gals. Then she was told to go out to “bring in business for the bank” and when it did, it was given to other accounts, not her. In addition from the first month they denied training her to do tasks her job required.
Having considered all the evidence, I find her cute, but nowhere near as cute as my wife. If she's that distracting, there's something very wrong with the other women in the office.
She absolutely was not going dressed in miniskirts and boobs hanging out. She was wearing well fitting, moderate-to-high-priced business clothing.
According to the story in village voice I just linked into a post, things she wore were not nearly as provocative as what others wore. In fact, they even told her not to wear turtlenecks! They told her not to wear business suits! They wanted her in a burka, it seems to me.
If the VV story is accurate, it seems clear that the problem is not her, but someone at the bank with an axe to grind.
The VV article I link above does talk to the quality of her work. It seems possible even likely she is a hard worker and a good worker.
So you work there and saw what she wore. Sorry, I didn’t understand.
But cleavage has no place in the workplace.
Also "moderate to high priced business clothing" says zilch zero nada as to modesty.
Here's a gossip site pic that is interesting:
Because of the knit jacket topping the turtleneck, I think this is passably modest. Without the jacket -- it definitely would not be modest enough for work.
"Melanie Griffith in Brentwood looking like she's gone up a cup size or two in that tight turtleneck."
The tight jeans are problematic -- in a professional banking environment I think they would be a "not modest enough."
You guys said the exact same thing. How can you tell?
The article says she is 5’5” tall, then says ‘because of her tall stature...” Tall? I have a friend who is about 5’7” and all legs - but rarely is a 5’5” woman leggy
If the bank was restricting her clothing choices more than her coworkers, the bank is in trouble. The one-sided article indicates they were telling her not to wear clothes that other people could - such as fitted business suits.
There is another side (at LEAST one) to the story, but so far I don’t see where she was being all that unreasonable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
