CitiBank Woman Fired for Being Too Hot

Do you believe this to be a fact? That's how you wrote it; maybe you didn't mean for it to come off that way. Maybe you did mean that. Either way, do you believe this to be true?

 

I don't think that the guys posting in this thread are trying to downplay the existence of sexism in the workforce, it's real, it happens and it fucking sucks. They're just saying that until hard evidence is presented they're not going to grab their pitchforks and torches to join the witch-hunt on CitiBank brass when we might have another 'victim' crying wolf for a payday ala the Duke Lacrosse thing. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but until hard evidence is presented you can't rule out the possibility.

This may be a matter of personal experience, but I think this is flat out false. I'm not saying it's discussed in the hiring or review process but do you seriously think that appearance doesn't play at least a subconscious hand for men, especially if the manager is female? Because in my last job where the management was overwhelmingly female the better looking guys were promoted faster and were given preferential treatment. It could have been that we were working harder and smarter (I worked my ass off) but it certainly felt like we had a leg up over the morbidly obese guy that seemingly worked just as hard. Don't get me wrong, it's WAY worse for women, but it's existent with men too.

Well put, another example is at my last job there was a woman who sneezed EXTREMELY loud, it was way more distracting than the hot girl in the revealing outfit, but it would have been ridiculous to fire her over it.

It's been mentioned before but does anyone else find it hard to believe that a group of heterosexual men had a conversation along the lines of:

"Did you see [hot chick] today?"
"Yeah, it was distracting, I really wish she wouldn't share her beautiful body with the office"
"Agreed, we should definitely approach her and tell her she can't wear clothing that's too revealing, only our less attractive subordinates can."

I'm willing to bet the farm that if they did indeed harass her about dressing too provocatively (as opposed to not provocatively enough) it's because they were put in a tight spot by an HR department that received complaints from jealous female colleagues. Now if everything she said is true, they obviously handled it VERY poorly, they're behavior shouldn't be excused and they should still be held accountable, I just feel a little bad for guys in management that are in a position where they have to enforce rules they don't agree with. But maybe that's just me thinking that not all managers and executives are sexist fire breathing demons, they usually are otherwise nice guys that have to do things they don't want to do and sometimes fuck it up, hard.

 

She's good looking. VERY good looking in fact. I can almost empathize with Citi on this one; she's so attractive that even in fuddy-duddy banker attire, she's like the school teacher we all wish we'd had growing up. What Citi is doing is protecting itself: in firing her, they want to avoid being sued BY her for sexual harassment later on. Not at all her fault or her problem; it's just guaranteed that some idiot coworker(s) would make a move eventually. I kinda feel sorry for her, but I know she'll land on her feet better off than before.

 

By this logic strippers would have to be seeking a great deal of attention and that's just silly.

 

This paragraph is going to be in all of my future employee handbooks. I read the same article that everyone else did. While not having first hand knowledge about being discriminated against, it no doubt happens. If this woman can prove that it happened, then she deserves compensation.
Sure, she could be making it all up. I didn't get that from the story.
For the record, I'm siding with the women on this one.
Besides, the fact that "PUSSY FARTS" was used, illustrates the point beautifully.

 

What point wouldn't the term "PUSSY FARTS" beautifully illustrate?

 

Thing 1: I don't think we all are clear on what her job was. My impression is that this is that next step up from Bank Teller. She's the person that sits in the open cubicle IN THE BANK - I go see her equivalent when I want to try to get a shitty SBA loan for my little buck-seventy-five-a-year business, or when I'm afraid a deposit won't clear before a check comes in to be paid. This is not a high-end sales job in "Finance," she's a banker in the more literal sense - she works in a bank. Like the place that's open to the public during the day, where you can see humans taking in or handing out cash money from behind half-inch plexiglass windows.

A working-class immigrant (-ish. Is someone from PR an immigrant, technically?) single Mom did pretty well for herself. She might be sweet as sugar and brilliant, she might be a horrible idiot - it doesn't matter. 70K is a damned good job for someone who grew up poor, just so you bankers and lawyers know, and it's plenty for someone to enjoy buying some really nice clothes (within reason, of course), and still provide perfectly well for their child.

But that doesn't matter, and whether she's a good Mom or bad, careless or thrifty, sweet or evil doesn't matter either. And frankly, it's none of anyone's god-damned business. A person who works in a low-level corporate environment is claiming to have been harassed and discriminated against, because of her looks. Because such behavior is common, we as a society have a responsibility to take it seriously. When someone (particularly in the lower levels of corporate structure) claims sexism or racism, polarized extreme responses are predictable and stupid, and more importantly, extremely destructive.

I say this because, well - look at what's gone on in this conversation. We know that, far too often, shitty people make false claims in order to profit. We also know that sexual harassment and discrimination are real and insidious, particularly in the way that each isolated occurrence feels dismiss-able and harmless. There is rarely such a thing as "hard evidence" of sexual harassment, and even less of simply creating/allowing an atmosphere where it's okay for douchebags to make comments to people in a place where they can't leave or even bitch about it without having to endure the endless "you're a gold-digging bitch who asked for it until you show me a smoking gun" from idiots like you guys. As a society, we can't allow criminals and sociopaths to alter our humanity such that we make it complete hell for a person to stand up and say that they're being exploited/mistreated/abused/harassed, most especially when they're in an environment where we know it to be commonplace.

Frank, if you're seriously going to try to play the argument that men also have to deal with being attractive or not as a factor, you must be very young, very naive, or just high. It's like the difference between shooting a bullet, and throwing it.



Thing 2: My impression was that this story was intended to be the jumping-off point for a discussion about working with someone very attractive, and whether it is their responsibility to do what they can to un-distract you from their appearance. Instead, you're literally picking apart her every sentence in an absurd attempt to Perry Mason your way to, "this smells fishy."

That's too bad. I'd bet anything most of you have a decent/funny story about working with a person who was double-take hot, or of how you were in a position to have to tell someone that, "I'm really sorry, this is weird, but I'm pretty sure you shouldn't show up here to church to service the organ in a tiny skirt with no panties on, and then bend over to work the knobs..."

 

I'm a young guy so I can't say I've experienced anything like this, so maybe the ladies of the thread can help me understand your position more, since I'm tending to agree with the men.

Cases like shegirl's above are clearly sexual harassment, and obviously happen all the time. I don't think there's much debate about that fact; the debate is whether the woman in the article was harassed. The ladies seem to think her claim has merit because many women's harassment claims do have merit (but maybe often go unreported for fear of reprisal). But the problem is those cases are nothing like this one. If the woman in the article claimed that (like shegirl) her manager told her he wanted to do nothing but bend her over a desk, I would believe that in a heartbeat. But that's not what she's claiming at all. She's claiming her managers told her to dress more appropriately, whatever that may mean, and that when she couldn't tone down her hotness enough they fired her. That makes no sense to me. If the managers are the type of sexist pigs who hired her because she's hot, they wouldn't fire her for the same reason. If they're the types who would sexually harass her because they want to fuck her brains out, they would keep her around at work. Why would they fire someone they like to hit on all the time?

I'm not even saying she's lying; I can't know that for sure with only one side of the story. What I don't understand is how all the ladies seem to have immediately assumed she's telling the truth because they know harassment like shegirl's goes on, when this case is nothing like that at all.

 

Not that it matters, because I understand the point you're making, but he wasn't my boss. He's a manager (so am I) with more seniority than me, but he's much closer to a colleague than a supervisor. If I had taken the situation to HR or another authority figure, I'm confident that the perception of my character among our co-workers and executives would have been enough to help validate my claims. But you're right, and I agree that it does happen, and it would be terribly unfortunate if I were to be fired for issuing a complaint regarding a factual event. I would feel outraged, and I would want justice.

Then again, what if I made the whole thing up? For some reason I fabricated the entire story, got caught, and was subsequently fired. Then I think the company would have a reasonable position to question the next guy that brought a complaint against her or somebody else. I think they would be justified in having some doubt in the next complaint of sexual harassment. Am I right, or would that make the company

Idiots like us? You prefer a shoot first, ask questions later approach? Don't question, just react? A friend of mine was robbed at gun point in a shady area recently trying to buy weed from some black dudes at 2 am after leaving the bar hammered. A lot of black guys sell weed and rob people around this particular area. He could have grabbed a cop pointed at a random black guy and said "That kid over there just tried selling me weed, then robbed me at gun point." By your logic, the cop should just arrest this kid, because we shouldn't allow criminals and sociopaths to scare victims into silent submission, especially not in an area where it's known to be commonplace. Doesn't really seem like an effective way to handle a situation, does it?

"What do you mean she's a witch? What are we waiting for, burn her!"

Seems a little "idiotic" to me.

 

Y'all are so naive/ignorant/delusional about this. Maybe often go reported? It's more like 99.999999% go unreported. Do you know many times my female co-workers and I have technically been harassed by both co-workers or patients? The last intern felt it was alright to touch me pretty frequently. It happens on a regular basis, and there isn't a damn thing to do about it. Nobody's going to have my back if I speak up. So I don't. That's the truth, and it's a lot of women's truth. Men will never truly understand that and most probably wouldn't care.

Really? Even if her manager was well respected, older, and powerful and she was a lowly bank teller? Would you believe her at the drop of a hat? You'd turn your back on her as quickly as you could and get as much distance as possible.

Speaking for myself, I didn't immediately assume anything. I don't know if that really happened or not. It's not my job to decide that. I have a problem with people automatically assuming she's lying and that her claim is completely ridiculous. What's ridiculous is that things like this happen all the time to many women, and at the end of the day a woman who speaks up is labeled a man-hater.

No wonder so many women really do hate men.

 

Let's take an entirely different scenario to try to explain my point. There have been a whole bunch of cases in the last 20 years or so in which a white person did some crazy fucked up shit like kill their children or their spouse, and then made up a story about how a black guy assaulted them or abducted their children or whatever. They were playing on the shitty reality that such things actually happen.
Now imagine if every time a white person reported being robbed or assaulted or witness to murder by a black person, the first response would be skepticism and/or outright ridicule or dismissal as another Susan Smith?

Because that's exactly what you're suggesting.

I'm not taking the ladies' side in this thread, in which I'm assuming everything this woman is saying is true. I'm saying that I'm not going to let a few fucked up individuals compared to an entire culture of sexist behavior make scrutinizing and attacking and doubting this woman's character my first response. If only because that will continue to enable the sexism to exist easily, since most people don't want to bring that kind of attack on themselves, on TOP of already being made to feel powerless.

 

Living in NYC earning what she earns and claiming to own the clothes so does is FAR from responsible. She would be in a mountain of debt. The brands she was naming run min $500 an item but most likely closer to $1000. She said she owned five cupboards of such items. This suggest two things: 1) She is in severe debt 2) She is lying.

Yes society needs to take such behavior seriously; however a whimsical internet messageboard dealing with a one-sided argument in the Village Voice does not.

Maybe I misread this thread but I saw very few people asking for a smoking gun. I simply saw the majority of individuals holding off for all the facts to be presented before passing judgement on an individual case that as presented was incredibly one-sided.

We both interpreted Frank's post differently. To me it meant men are also discriminated within their own sex based on attractiveness. My experience working in Corporate Finance this does hold true. Attractiveness for men though was deemed largely on height and physical shape, the taller and better shape a guy was it without doubt helped his career.

Agreed; however it sadly did go the route of debating this individual case. This seemed to be the minority of posters while the rest took the bait (myself included) and felt the need to point out how incredulous this was.

 

For the record, if you're female and haven't posted in the boobie thread, I'm going to ban you for posting frumpy. If you have posted in the boobie thread, you're a slut who is distracting the male members from their important postings and I'm going to ban you.

 

That's funny, because after I posted that I went back and edited it to add a similar scenario/analogy to make a point. I'm really not suggesting that, if anything I'm trying to play devil's advocate to prove a point. It isn't my intent to derail this thread, personally attack anyone, or say the girl in the article is lying. Honestly, I find this thread and the entire subject to be fascinating.

Listen, my girlfriend is really good looking and works in finance as an advisor, and at least once a week her boss says something sexually harrassing to her. For the most part it's benign, but of course it bothers her and it bothers me. I also mentioned the instances of sexual harassment that I've experienced. I truly am sympathetic to the situation. However, like I mentioned, I've also seen the otherside of the equation.* So yes, simply reading an article about a person I don't know is going to cause elements of doubt in my mind.

*I will agree that a majority of reported sexual harassment complaints are true, and not fabricated. I will also agree that 99% of sexual harassment goes unreported.

 

A question for the ladies. What do ya'll think about the difference in this particular case in relation to most others? Is it any different that this particular case involves suppression of sexuality as opposed to uh, I don't know, promotion of sexuality?

Or do you view them both as the same?


and just for some balance, here's this:

 

For the record, a business banker is not a "glorified teller." They are like representatives that bring in business for the banks, recruiting clients and solving all the banking and finance problems a small business would have. Depending on their experience, they can manage multimillion dollar accounts. I would certainly qualify them as bankers, given the amount of finance testing they have to go through just to get to a respectable level of business banking. So I really can't understand the irrelevant hating on her job that is going through this thread. It's not like she's some idiot college graduate looking for a pay out. Business banking is a legit job that I would keep if I had the ability to, and I feel like she would try to keep hers at any cost as well.

Focus:

I worked in a hotel restaurant when I was 18, and there is no better place to get sexually harassed. Nothing was more terrifying than when the Director of Food and Beverages walked in. He was this 6'6" lanky Spanish man who looked like a velociraptor, mostly due to the fact that he always had a predatory look on his face. And always, always he had some weird comment to throw my way that would terrify me.

My (least)favorite moment was when he walked in and I smiled and greeted him like any other person. He stops, shakes his head and says, "Why do you always pretend you're so innocent? We both know you're dirty," and walked away.

The best part about his constant harassment was this: I smile when I get really nervous or uncomfortable, so when I brought up to my other managers that this treatment wasn't making me feel too great, the response was, "But you're always smiling. I think you actually like it but you just want to complain."

As an unassertive 18-year-old, that will pretty much keep you from "complaining" ever again. The beauty was that a few months after I quit, I got a call about the director's behavior. HR asked me if I quit specifically because of him and I said, "Yes, I told you that when I quit." I quickly dialed my friend who still worked at the restaurant to see what was up. Apparently, a new girl had been hired and he was doing the same things to her that he had to me. The hotel wanted to hire a new director and were finally looking into the myriad complaints that had been levied against the old one.

If only my timing had been better, that would have been my million dollars instead of the new girl's! Bitch.

 

I don't disagree if she was a Business Banker, but based off her salary and location, the training she claims to have not received and the general gist of the article I would agree with JProcter and the fact she was more likely an infrastructure admin to this role who claimed otherwise.