Posted on 06/02/2010 5:09:25 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
Extract: Debrahlee Lorenzana is filing a lawsuit against Citibank because they fired her, she says, for the strangest reason: she's too hot.
....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," she says
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
THANK YOU!
Anyone who even thinks she is guilty of anything needs to be hanged!
Read the second page of this story: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-01/news/is-this-woman-too-hot-to-work-in-a-bank/2
According to that: After this bank hired her (possibly because she was hot), she was denied training needed to perform her job description. Then she was told, “Go get business for the bank.” When business came into the bank as a result of her efforts, instead of being assigned to her account, they were assigned to others.
If nothing else, ya gotta feel for this gal if the way this is portrayed is accurate.
A restaurant in Denver.
yep. Only problem is, modesty isn’t taught any more. Well, in most places. My son understands its importance, as do most of the kids we know. Of course, we homeschool. ;-)
Take a look at this article: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-01/news/is-this-woman-too-hot-to-work-in-a-bank/2 ... the bank telling her she was too hot was not a single occurrence.
I have only two words to say:
Mein Gott!!!
Sorry, wasn’t familiar. I avoid Denver. Except when my wife wants to go to the Spaghetti Factory.
The full article explains that she’ll go before an arbitrator instead—and that sexual/hiring issues don’t tend to go as well with arbitrators because they are primarily middle-aged white men.
I’m visiting a friend in Aurora next week. We’re going to
the Fort for dinner in Morrison and the next day to a
Rockies game.
According to the Village Voice article, she was not dressing inappropriately as far as modesty is concerned. They took pictures of co-workers of hers who clearly did. The bank’s dress restrictions on her consisted of such things as ‘don’t wear turtlenecks’ ... ‘don’t wear business suits’ ... ‘don’t wear 3” heels’ (Hard as it is for me to understand, 3” heels certainly seems OK for business)
Read the Village Voice story I linked above. I know that it was written by and for her lawyer, but I certainly think that in this case, this lady may well have been dressing appropriately- but God has given her some beautiful assets.
I hope that Citibank at a minimum has to provide training for her in a profession in which her prettiness could never be to her detriment, and in which her intelligence is of value.
Definitely fodder for the hottie ping list...
Thanks,I’m going for the buffalo prime rib.
Complete and utter nonsense.
She should sue them because all they had to do was transfer her to where all gay males worked, not a problem for most banks.
I’d hit it.
Guilty—in the sense that yes, she is beautiful(she may not be quite to your taste, but she would appeal very strongly to many men) and she is not dressing in a businesslike way suitable for a bank.
Clothes send a message. If you’re wearing clothes that say, “I’m a team player, I subscribe to the goals of this organization, I want to get ahead here, and I’m ready to work,” you’re not going to get fired no matter how sexy you are. But this girl is sending a message saying, “I’m more interested in being pretty and being attractive to men than I am in advancing my career with Citibank,” so evidently her career at Citibank did not advance.
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.