A former CitiBank employee is filing a lawsuit against her former occupation under grounds that her dismissal was unjustified. Why? She's a smoking hot Puero Rican. I tried reading this article, but I was too distracted by her pictures. No idea what publication this is, but the man-hating is strong in this one. Oh, if only Bunny were still around to berate us all... Focus: Do you work with a hot girl? Is it hard to concentrate? Alt-Focus: Should women give a little effort in the workplace as to not sex themselves up?
There was a admin where I work who was reported by ugly jealous bitches for wearing revealing clothes. She was from Puerto Rico, had a smoking hot body, and wore her clothes well. She was eventually terminated for performance issues and her replacement looks like a man with boobies.
I work in a manufacturing plant with about 250 males and 30 females. Of those 30 women, i'd say a good 50% are either hideously fat, or just butt ugly. There are only 3 who are in their 20s and good looking. About 1 year ago, the lady who did our filing and work order entry for my department retired, and HR was doing the interviews for her replacement in the empty office in our wing of the plant. Of the 6 women who came in, 5 of them looked to be in their mid to late 20s, and most of them were pretty decent to look at. After 1 week of interviewing, HR announced the hiring. They hired the 200 lb manatee who looks like someone set her face on fire and put it out with a shovel. Yeah, no distraction there.
This is just BS. We ALL (men&women) are expected to "look nice" in a job interview, like Chater eluded to, so as to impress with not just our knowledge but show we care and KNOW our appearance matters during the hiring process. She's hired and because the horsefaces and/or jealous fatties and/or businessmen that can't think about anything else but what she'd look like bent over his desk while she's reciting his schedule for the day can't handle, oh I dunno, acting like an adult in a business setting, she gets shit canned? Really? I don't dress down for work. I dress business casual. I try to look nice and professional. I wear heels, boots, pencil skirts and the like because I not only want to gain respect of clients so they trust me, I also do it for me. Who the fuck doesn't like knowing they look nice? What a bunch of shit. So because I'm tall yet wear heels it's distracting and I shouldn't? Rather be frumpy in flats? I don't think so. If she were wearing tops that have the potential for a wardrobe malfunction at any given moment I could understand, or if she wore skirts that her buttcheeks peeked out of everytime she bent over I could also understand that. From what the article says that is not the case. They fired her because shes got a tiny waist, big tits and is easy on the eyes. I hope she wins. EDIT: For the guys that don't know what a pencil skirt is here ya go:Why don't they just drag her into the townsquare and stone her? Ridiculous.
First you don't read enough (according to each generations arbitrary standards) then you are the lazy self entitled downfall of our society (see earlier parenthetical) Now your firing hot Puerto Rican women who are good at their jobs???? Who are these assholes of all ages who keep fucking it up for everyone? I would take one out of four to work with, female, hot, puerto rican, or god forbid...good at their fucking jobs. It is getting mentally exhausting trying to comprehend the amount of blatant stupidity and "assholishness" (sic? is that even a word?) that is out here in the world. I, I ...nevermind, I don't have a point, I give the fuck up. By the way 3 hour layovers and airport bars are awesome at 11am.
I agree. 99% of the women that I work/worked with generally have more hair on their chests than I do. That being said, I know with all of my soul that if I worked with that woman, there would be an industrial accident of epic proportions. That wouldn't be the womans fault for being hot. It would be mine for not being able to concentrate. I hope she crushes Citibank. To fire someone based on their looks? No wonder the taxpayers needed to bail out the banks. Dumbshits.
Those guys are fucking assholes (if they really did fire her for that reason). I don't say that out of concern for the Hot Woman's feelings/ability to make a living, I say it on behalf of all the straight male/lesbian employees at that office who no longer get to see a model-eqivalent co-worker every day of their job. Do you know how pleasant an atmosphere hot girls instantly bring to an office environment? Not saying without her everyone's gonna start fighting, but if work is going shitty, and it's a long day, simply chatting with the nice, smoking-hot Peurto Rican lady would instantly make you at least 17% happier. And just imagine a new employee starting a week before she got fired, not getting enough time to etch a proper mental image of her in his spank bank. Poor guy. I guarantee she smells fucking fantastic too. I can't be bothered/was too distracted to read the article as well, but I'm pretty sure these people don't work at NASA. Like it fucking matters if they're a little distracted during work. I'm sure the boredom that comes from her absence will cause almost the same amount of errors as her rocking tits used to. These guys need their man cards revoked immediately. Fucking pricks. As for the alt-focus: fuck no.
This. If she is being distracted by dressing slutty that's one thing. But to ban her from turtlenecks, pencil skirts, and business suits? None of those are slutty but instead business casual. It's a god damned turtle neck. It is the least revealing top that a woman can wear! No skin is showing above the wrists or below the neck. Short skirts are one thing, long slim ones are another. There is nothing wrong with wearing non-revealing skirts like that. And business suits? Again, not revealing. Do I find it hot? Sure, but I can control myself enough not to tell a woman she can't wear it anymore. What the fuck else could she wear if she can't wear those three things? Is this the only acceptable top?
One of the managers at my restaurant is a 24-year-old drop-dead gorgeous blonde bombshell that every male server in the place drools over. It's no secret, we all know she's hot, she brushes it off, does her job, and acts like it doesn't matter. Every older manager at the place gives her shit in a friendly way, and none of it is ever because of her looks - it's because she's the youngest. We all know it's there, fucking I know it's there, sometimes I catch myself being a little preoccupied with her looks, but that's the way it is. I think in a restaurant it's different because there's virtually no political correctness, office politics or power struggles within the ranks, but if anyone could turn a place upside down just by being hot, it's her. But still, no one cares, and why should they? Are people that inept in their personal lives that a hot girl would derail the workplace? I just don't see how a good-looking girl could do anything to a work environment except be a good-looking girl. As for my own focus, the core of hostesses at my restaurant are all leggy blonde George Washington University students, and the lesser-attractive women are all on the wait staff. It's a blind selection process, I tell ya.
When I worked at Burger King in HS, all the guys worked out back and all the pretty girls worked out front at the registers. Repeatedly the girls would ask to run the grills, and the manager would laugh it off, except to the most persistent girls, to which he just answered "you're too pretty to work out back". I'm not sure why my female co-workers really wanted to work out back anyway, but it's messed up that he wouldn't let them, because he wanted a better looking staff to deal with customers.
I bet if you really look at the performance of these women who claim to be fired for being too pretty, you will find that most of them were doing a shitty job, and got their ass canned, and since they aren't black/gay/jewish/asian/borg/ they use their one defining attribute to claim discrimination. She is acting as though the singled her out for dressing in flattering clothes. I bet if you looked at the standard dress code, she was violating it because she didn't read the rules, and decided that she was being discriminated against. Translation: She looked pale, and someone asked if she was feeling ok. Translation: Someone said, "I didn't know you had curly hair. I liked your straight hair" There is of course no place in any office for sexual harassment, unless some attractive woman is doing it to me. But this is a clear case of he said, she said, and her case seems pretty circumstantial to me, and she went running to the press to get more light shed on her story, and of course provided them with pictures of her looking hot to salt the story with to try and get sympathy, and to generate more clicks, because sex sells, even a lame story.
Oddest item she was not allowed to wear: turtlenecks. No, really, look at the article. She couldn't wear turtlenecks. Apparently, the type of shirt that covers the highest percentage of skin is too distracting. Although it should be pointed out that the article doesn't actually reprint any of the supposed evidence. It could be that this woman just sucked at her job. There's an awful lot of "she says" and "she recalls" in the two articles. Haven't I seen a porno that started like this? Um, your WHAT?
So you seem to think turtlenecks and pencil skirts were a no no in the dress code? Really? I highly doubt that. They were only a no no to someone that looked good in them to the point it was "distracting", not to the others. That is discrimination. If she wasn't doing her job, that's one thing and I agree with you 100% but if the reasons listed in that story are indeed the reasons she was then they deserve to be slapped with a suit.
Do we have any reason to um...believe anything that she says? I read the article. And the four page one linked in it, from the Village Voice. I literally did not see a single claim that cited anything besides her recollection of conversations. And she admits that she was cited for bringing in too little business (she claims that it's because her bosses were giving her business to other workers). Which is more likely: her two bosses, both male, decided to pick on the hot chick and tell her to dress frumpy, or that she's filing a frivolous lawsuit?
So the basic premise, "The mean men fired me because they found me too sexually appealing," doesn't raise an eyebrow? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ah, yes, the old "Those Attention-Seeking Whores Actually Sucked At Their Jobs, The Harassers Involved Never Did Anything Wrong" argument. Not only is it utter bullshit, but it totally whitewashes the sexist assholery that most hot women have to work with in the professional realm. Even just from a casual reading, it's clear to me that this woman tried to work with the ever-changing restrictions on her work attire, albeit with the surly attitude that one rightfully develops as a response to being policed about your appearance past the age of 10. They told her she was too sexy--so she laid off the makeup. Normally, this would fix this issue, since very few of us ladies look rosy-fresh without some mascara in the morning. But not at Citibank. No, they told her she needed to wear makeup.* Fine, she puts it back on. Then she decides to do what's actually best for her curly hair--skip the damaging flat-iron--in an attempt to deflect attention away from the long, silky smooth tresses that may have been distracting to her so-retarded-they-couldn't-work-around-a-hot-chick coworkers...but that wasn't good either. And just like the admonishments that black women have been receiving for decades all across America, she was told that her curly hair wasn't "professional" enough and that she'd have to straighten it unless she wanted to be thought of as unprofessional. Yeah. Let's recap, shall we? They have an issue with her clothes. She tries several ways to fix this, getting increasingly frustrated that none are apparently acceptable to those who have issues with her. Too fitting? Whore. Too baggy? Frumpy hag who doesn't represent the professional face of Citibank. Then there's a problem with her face. Then her hair. Frankly, I'm suprised someone didn't police her shitting habits in the bathroom--because her pooping groans could obviously sound like sexual pleasure to those listening hard enough at the ladies' room door. This is fucking ridiculous, and I'm even more pissed that she was forced to sign an arbitration clause upon her hiring that doesn't allow her to pursue these jackasses in court. Because you know the arbitrator that Citibank pays for isn't going to risk his next paycheck on anything other than an egregious violation of her person--something like a workplace rape or documented sexual coercion from a supervisor. Then again, KBR was shielding several workplace rapists through such arbitration clauses until Franken put a stop to it so maybe I shouldn't even give Citibank the benefit of the doubt. She may have sucked at her job--I don't know, nor do I care. If she had poor job performance, why say anything about her clothes? Fire her for being a shitty worker and be done with it. No, the harassment was intentional--my bet is that they wanted her to quit on her own. When she didn't, they resorted to the kind of things bosses all know how to do but rarely go through with unless trying to oust someone--slowly changing the workload, nitpicking projects, and waiting for a minor misstep that would be overlooked if anyone other than the target had made it....then firing the target with full immunity from repercussions. And, to be clear, not only is that illegal but it speaks volumes of terrible things about anyone who participated, witnessed, or sanctioned such behavior. *Full disclosure: I've been reprimanded several times for wearing too little/too much makeup. I've been told at one job that my two coats of mascara, foundation, blush, and conservative eyeliner aren't enough--I must also wear lipstick. At another job, I was told that my "eyeshadow" was distracting--even though I never wear eyeshadow because I look silly in it. Simply put, haters want to hate.....regardless of whether they have a basis for hating or not.
The null presumption is innocence, she is the one who needs to prove her case and she has offered nothing.
Not if it's true. You're telling me you think this never happens? I like how you guys seem to think you know about this from her angle. When did you guys grow tits and a vag? MCB, I know how you like to needle to draw debate and make threads interesting. Matter of fact I appreciate it because it makes members think and post. My point is that this kind of thing does happen from time to time *GASP* it's shocking I know, and is legitimate. I don't know what I was expecting considering this is a male dominated forum though.