But I'll bet you play strip poker, amiright!? But be careful--I heard Chater likes to change poker rules on you mid-game, complain about the clothes you haven't taken off yet, and then kick you out of the game because he secretly only wants to see Maltob naked. If this happens, you certainly cannot complain about it--since you didn't invite anyone else (why do y'all always leave NettDaddy out!?) no one can back you up if it happens. If--I really don't believe anything that comes out of your mouth anyhow.
I'm a lifeguard/swimming instructor, and hot girls do complicate my day somewhat. (Note: I'm fiiiiiiiine with it.) Have you ever tried to hide a boner in swim trunks? It's tough. And I bet it'd be even tougher to convince the authorities that the source of said boner was the sexy lifeguard with the ass that defies physics and reason, as opposed to the class of 6 year olds you're teaching at the time.
Give me a break. Prove it. Prove that it's utter bullshit, and that this girl was harassed and didn't suck at her job. You've read one biased article. You can't jump to a conclusion after hearing one side of the argument. I'm not saying that this girl wasn't discriminated against, and that sexual harassment doesn't happen, but every accusation of these offenses isn't true. If she really was fired for "being too hot" (these are her words, really?), then shame on CitiBank and I hope she gets justice. But this article doesn't prove anything. I know my experience isn't the norm, but here is what I've seen 3 times in 5 years with my company. A female employee sucks at her job, gets fired, sues. A black woman sued for racial discrimination, a white woman sued for sexual harassment, and another black woman sued for both. Three bullshit lawsuits and we never had to pay a dime to any of the women because they were "utter bullshit." It's to the point now where if we need to fire a female employee we have to put up with her underperformance for a LONG time while we carefully document every single one of her fuck ups. Listen, I understand sexual harassment occurs, and nobody should have to deal with it, and the violators should be punished. BUT, just because a person launches an accusation doesn't make it true. Believe it or not, some people fucking suck at their job and deserve to be fired. Some of these same people are women. And some of these women are going to try to fraudulently exploit a system designed to help real victims. There's nothing in that article that proves anything. In fact, the whole article came off extremely hokey. Whatever the truth to this may be, I hope justice is doled out appropriately. For whatever it's worth, I'm a good looking guy, and women at work say shit to me all the time. Usually it's in jest, and most of the women are smart enough to realize that I wouldn't touch their fug ass with a ten foot pole, so I can take the joke and in these cases I'll laugh it off. But then... One girl blatantly wanted my nuts, and used to come sit in my office for 20 minutes at a time and talk about nonsense, while I would try my best to work and toss out the occasional "uh huh" "oh, that sucks." She knew I had a girlfriend at the time, and had even met her a half dozen times at work functions, and still constantly suggested that we should hook up, and would text me all the time to hang out when we weren't working. She even tried physically coming over my desk grabbing at my dick and kissing me. Her dad was a manager at the company, and I didn't find her attractive at all. So yea, that shit goes both ways, and I can promise you that I understand from first hand experience what sexual harassment is all about. But I'm not going to buy into every case I hear about based on one side of the argument. (That chick no longer works for us, and the above events happened two years ago, and just recently she started again with the constant fucking texting after we ran into each other when she came w/ her dad to another work function. Crazy psycho. Raise up off these n-u-t's, cuz you gets none of these.)
Without real evidence either way it's difficult to be persuaded in either direction, but the fact she felt it necessary to go do a photoshoot with her lawyer only makes me lean toward the I'm-hot-so-you-owe-me-something version. Is there any other purpose for the shoot other than proof of said hotness? I really like the "conservative" example; look at me in my pantsuit looking like I read the WSJ, and do other bank-related stuff. Get some video footage of her at work.
I work in a plastic surgeon's office and it's a known fact that the Dr doesn't hire unattractive people. No one is particularly smoking, but the only girl who wears higher than a size 10 is particularly tall and also pregnant. The Dr's thinking, and rightly so, is that attractive people in the office give the allusion that he is good at his job. It's assumed that we are not only employees, but patients.
It's easy to scoff at the "no turtlenecks" thing. But guys, have you seen her in a turtleneck? There is really no hiding dem titties.
I love it when other people prove my point for me. You even admitted it above, but I don't think you understood that you were agreeing with me. Here, let me spell this out for you: I don't have to prove that she didn't suck at her job. She may have been fired for truly abysmal job performance. For all I know, she showed up to work every fucking day, stuck her fingers in her cooter, and refused to pull them out until 5:00. Whatever. That doesn't change the fact that she was repeatedly harassed about her clothing. In this case, Ms. L. was harassed to the point that she transferred locations. This harassment is repeatedly proven through the series of e-mails that she sent to HR, each of them (admittedly a bit on the defensive side, but I think it's amply justified) bemoaning the fact that the tellers downstairs were getting to wear V-neck shirts with impunity while she was being heavily policed in a turtleneck, the fact that she can't help her curvy figure, the unfairness of being constantly pulled aside and having her appearance judged by her coworkers and supervisors. Those e-mails, and the lack of a solution to the issues within them, have everything to do with why she transferred. And, to be entirely fair, I would think that all of that harassment certainly had some sort of effect on her performance. I know most people wouldn't be able to get anything done at work if they're constantly changing clothes, covering up anytime another person walks past their cubicle, worrying about the "appropriateness" of their current outfit, and transferring locations to get away from staring coworkers. So here's how this works: Your employee sucks? Document their shittiness, and fire them. Do NOT obsessively police them about their appearance beforehand, because EVEN IF THE REAL REASON YOU'RE FIRING HER IS BECAUSE SHE'S A DUMBASS WHO DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING EXCEPT PUSSY FARTS, you will be guilty of workplace discrimination. Because, you know, you discriminated against their appearance before firing them. Only a fucking retard wouldn't see that the two will appear to be linked to everyone not wearing patriarchal blinders. Real life example: If a plumber fucked up my toilet beyond all hope and his asscrack stared me down the entire time, which is the appropriate way to handle the situation: 1) Snarkily criticize him about his crack, his pants, his short shirt, his old belt, his weight and body type, and then only after harassing him mention that I'm not paying him because he broke my pipes and didn't do a good job 2) Tell him succinctly that he didn't perform as promised and therefore I am cutting him from the job without pay. Yeah, it's obvious isn't it? So. Your coworkers probably weren't harassed about their race to the point where they transferred offices, were they? Nor were they repeatedly policed about their personal appearance, am I right? In those instances, I would agree with you that they were just trying to milk your company. But there are shitty people everywhere. Learn to recognize the differences in nuanced situations and stop using the shitty people you have known as a litmus test for how you automatically judge others in similar situations. Not every case like this is legitimate, but not every case is non-legitimate--so instead of automatically assuming that she's just another gold-digger like the ones you knew/your cousin knew/you heard about from that one guy at church, maybe you should look at this situation with a fresh pair of eyes and review the e-mails. The transfer request. The photos of specific outfits that she was told were vetoed. And maybe, just maybe, you might see that this is entirely different and totally worthy of being examined. If for nothing else, why so many people in her work environment found her appearance to be a suitable topic of workplace conversation--when is that ever okay?
I work at a Bank as a teller amongst 4 other men and 15 women employees. Of the ladies five are hot (two are 3's and three are 4's on the 5-point tucker scale). I fuckin' love it when the hot ones put a little extra effort or wear some tight bottoms, but to think that I couldn't concentrate is ridiculous to me. I do my job just fine and take peeks at the view when they present themselves. I honestly hope she wins this lawsuit. A good looking girl in professional attire is very attractive to me, and I laugh at the fact that the males in the story couldn't concentrate on their work. What a joke.
We don't employ any attractive women in our office (well, at least none that are attractive to me). Most of our employees, while female, are late 40s and upwards. At one stage, we did hire a couple of young, attractive women; and they turned out to be completely hopeless workwise, and only ended up getting catty between themselves and with the older ones. On the other hand, my brother employs some absolutely gorgeous women and the only problem he's had is them claiming sick leave to get breast enlargements (true story). Supposing for a second that they did really fire her for being too hot; how is she any different now than when they hired her? If she was hot then, they knew exactly what they were getting. Are we talking ugly duckling syndrom here? Or perhaps she was wearing a burkha.
I'm curious as to what her job actually was--I didn't find it in the article and or in any of your supporting arguments (specific job--I don't just mean if it's in IBanking, CorpFin, Mergers & Acquisitions, etc). I mean, as a guy--if she's good at her job, and easy on the eyes, what is the problem?She wasn't in an HR position--she was really doing work for the company with clients. I just wonder how much client interaction she had. Also I wonder if her "hotness" was intimidating--as in, is there a certain point past which your hotness becomes intimidating to someone you are working with (This sounds dumb, just bear with me)? I really don't understand how this wasn't good for Citi, if she was good at her job--her hotness should just be another plus for them in pulling a client.
Well, I've been lurking a bit, so why don't I go ahead and fill that role for you? "Where intelligent discourse and depravity meet?" Really? When does the intelligent discourse start? Because I've got to say, guys, I'm seriously disappointed. Even among the males responding in this thread who I know to be intelligent and relatively well-rounded contributors, I'm amazed by how naive and blind you guys are to the culture in which you work. Toddus? Dude - nothing but an advantage in the financial sector?!? What? Not only is that a ridiculous statement, but how the fuck do you figure you know what it looks like from the other side of the vagina? You're smarter than that, I've seen it. Look, y'all - the culture of sexist behavior in the workplace is all the fuck over this thread. The women here have seen it or felt it so often that instead of discussing the focus, they're hopping mad about the terrible injustice they're sure has been perpetrated here. And a bunch of the men are so completely blind to the bullshit way their own "irreverent, anti-pc sense of humor" is being used as subterfuge for their inability to see women as humans, that they can't believe this kind of alleged behavior is common as it is. Well it is. If a man is good at or sucks at his job, that's what is talked about. Period. At no point does anyone mention whether he's in great shape or wears really nice suits or whether he has a chiseled jaw or a double chin. No one gives a fuck. But if it's a woman, her appearance is totally part of the equation. There are even a bunch of posts here meant to show that it isn't so, doing exactly that. And for the record - I work with and around a lot of beautiful women. Yeah, occasionally it distracts me for a moment. Beautiful women do that to me. So does the fact that sometimes I feel a bit hungry before lunch time, or that I might get an itch on my arm while I'm pushing something through the tablesaw and can't stop to scratch it. I recognize it and I move the fuck on with my life. No, I don't think they should have to "dress down" their attractiveness unless it's specifically called for, which in an art school is pretty much never. When would it be specifically called for? I have a friend who's a crisis counselor for children who've been sexually assaulted - she definitely takes care to dress plainly and conservatively, because having her tits and tattoos hanging out of her tank top is probably not what the Parents of that child want to see during their visit to the hospital. Oh, and um, ...hey, y'all! Nice to see you. How've you been?
A friend of a friend was telling us a funny story about how in his late teens he worked at a Pizza Hut in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The guy that was the owner of the store was hardly ever there and had appointed a "manager" who then proceeded only to hire attractive young women and then issue them with work uniforms that were a size or two too small. The manager and his work mates then tried their very best to have sex with every female they had hired that would put out.
How you are consistently that fucking stupid? Nothing has been proven. Nothing. How can you bemoan the lack of solution when we are not privy to the response she received from HR nor are we aware of how the entire matter was conducted internally. All we have is one side of the story and yet you have made the mental leap to 'she says it's true, give her a million dollars'. If you want to talk about personal experiences of discrimination great, I am sure it would possibly create awareness that may have evaded some of us here. But to infer that due to your own experiences this Lady was also the victim of discrimination because she said so is intellectually dishonest plain and simple. So let's look at what we know she has based has based off one article: Her: Her testimony Her letters to HR Witness tetismony of which we are currently not privy Yet from this you have made absurd leaps to her discrimination.
My comment was based purely off my experiences. Female Bankers who were hot were massively advantaged over less attractive colleagues. This was all the way up from Grads to about 7-10 years into their career where regardless of hotness there still existed a somewhat glass ceiling. It wasn't even a matter of debate, it was an advantage plain and simple. You will notice I didn't stress this holds for society or Finance in general, merely my experiences in my former field which was also a sub-section of a wider one.
This is clearly going nowhere and needs to be locked. Was she mistreated at work due to her appearance? Maybe. Is she just a money grubbing twat? Maybe. Could both of these things be true? Hey, there's something we haven't discussed that might actually explain everything!...but still, maybe. Either way, who the fuck knows. So instead of psychoanalyzing her, the employees of Citi, and each other, why don't we talk about something where we actually have a basis for argument....like how fucking hot this gal really is. Mother of god the things I would do to her. I can't begin to imagine why a straight male(or lesbian woman) wouldn't want to work with her. Sweet Jesus ya'll see them titties?
I read that article. I think it's entirely possible that that woman may be an unstable obstinate pain in the ass. All of her named relationships, personal and business, are short lived. She seems to play her race card twice. The first time in order to rationalize her dress up and be feminine tendencies and the second to proclaim her indomitable work ethic; after which she left the work force to pursue a short lived marriage. That whole since she already had an offer from Washington Mutual so we'll just give you $70,000.00 a year and 3 weeks vacation seems strange also. That was the same month that Washington Mutual was seized by the feds and became the biggest banking failure in US history. I'm skeptical that they were hiring around that time. They asked her to tone down her dress, so she comes in without makeup and unkept hair. Then the flip flop incident. She shops at Zare for her work clothes but has five closets full of Burberry and those other high fashion outlets for personal use (I don't, but ladies of the board may know how conservative or not Ralph Lauren, Burberry, and Dolce are.) Also her dialogue is strange. "Other tellers had wedgies", "ex-boyfriend says it's my Spic pride" just doesn't sound professional. Oh, here is an article about her attorney dated in June of 2008. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...top_sexual_harassment_attorney_called_ch.html She is keeping good company. Anyway, yea I think she is pretty much full of shit and after a payday. The amount of press and attention she can generate will dictate which magazine she gets to take her clothes off in. I don't see her making Playboy or Penthouse, but I think she has a great chance at Maxim or Stuff type publications. She's right about what boneheads her managers were for not having a female present at her dress downs. I bet that becomes a new rule. As an employer, I've only had to do this once, and I made sure to use the female manager to carry out my instructions without that girl knowing I had anything to do with it. I've owned a small business that employs only woman for fifteen years. Most of these have been college age with a few from high school. In my experience, the more skin they show, the more attention they are after or the worse they behave. Not only that, but these are the same ones who when asked, "Hey, did Nitwit ever come on to you" will lie to protect their egos.
There is a ton about this article that seems fishy. In a situation like this, where neither side really knows what happened, a natural and healthy reaction is to review someone’s story for inconsistencies. This sounds completely legit. I doubt any of the men posting here doubt this fact pattern for an instant, except to question how managers could be that stupid. Here we see a history of this person being harassed by superiors working in bank sales, but also a history of quitting on the spot in the face of harassment. It’s odd that a latter incident, occurring when she had stronger contacts, skills and experience, didn’t incent her to take action immediately. Odd choice of words when demonstrating a professional image. Keep in mind that she is going before an arbitrator, not a jury of working people in Queens. It also seems odd that a high-achieving, top performing workaholic in the NYC financial services sector felt like it meant something to earn close to $70,000 after 7 years in that field. Sales careers that you commit to usually bear fruit if you can hang in for that long, and NYC FS is perhaps the most lucrative sector and region in the world. Something about what her job actually entailed doesn’t pass the smell test. This isn’t a responsible way for a single mother earning $70k to spend. And the marathon thing sounds like a plain lie. How many people run marathons in high school? How many amateurs run marathons barefoot? How many people refer to it as a “high school marathon?” Leaving the workplace to get married? When you already have a 10 year old kid and “love to work?” It is probably unfair to draw inferences about her dealings with men from the fact that her marriage lasted less than one year. My spidey sense is tingling. Isn’t yours? She spent whatever she spent on an Armani dress, couldn’t get it properly tailored, and elected to wear that for her interview? She didn’t have anything in her five closets that fit better? If she was in sales, why is she framing the job in terms of salary? She isn’t in sales or banking. She’s a coordinator. This happens to be a pet peeve of mine; people describing him or herself as a “banker” or “professional” because he or she happens to work in an office supporting bankers or professionals. I’m certainly not going to fault her for not reapplying at WaMu, but there are always commission based sales jobs to be had where her appearance could have been an asset. Instead she makes the wide swing from shopping compulsively to not being able to afford transit, rent and Christmas? Everything else in the timeline presented here rings true to me – the disparate treatment, the hostile work environment, the fact that she was treated worse due to her good looks. But as a human being, this person is generally full of shit. I would expect the female board members who have experienced harassment to be angrier with her than the male posters, because it’s women like her who make it so hard for the rest of you to come forward with genuine complaints.
Listen, you're not comprehending my point. Admittedly I got off track, so maybe that's my fault. What fact? Where are the facts? You're using that word very liberally. This article doesn't prove anything. Sorry, but I'm not going to automatically believe everything I read in an article from The Village Voice, or believe every statement I hear from her or her lawyer. How do you know that she was repeatedly harassed about her clothing? You're just taking her word for it. Like I said in my original post, the "evidence" we have is presented in one biased article. That doesn't prove a damn thing. Exactly. Forgive me for not immediately sympathizing with her or her accusations based on this article alone.