Fired for being sexy?!

[HEMI6point1]

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37495127...s-us_business/

Basically, her male colleagues complained that what she was wearing was too distracting (even if she wore a turtleneck.... come on). So she complained to HR, her colleagues retaliated, and she was fired.

Personally, if you're a male and you complain that a pretty female co-worker's clothes are "distracting" then I seriously have to question your sexuality or tastes.

[Boozy]

It's impossible to say for sure, but I suspect that Citibank, which is claiming to have fired her for incompetence, is telling the truth. Pretty women don't get fired just for being pretty.

She was at one point told her pants were too tight. Not "your ass is so phenomenal it's distracting the men". No. "Your pants are too tight." A tactful way of saying, "Please don't dress like a two-dollar whore when coming to work."

I don't wear tight pants to work. It's a professional environment. Tight clothes are inappropriate.

If anything, I think she's shocked that her looks didn't let her get away with murder at this particular job. They probably have in the past.

[HYHYBT]

Anything's possible, but her story doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Her name's Lorenzana. O_o That sounds like a stripper name.

Seriously, her story seems very suspect. O_o I suspect that Boozy's right, and she's just shocked that batting her eyelashes at her bosses didn't stop them from canning her for poor work.

She is seeking future earnings, back pay, and damages for mental and emotional distress.

She doesn't look very distressed in the video. -.- She looks more like she's trying to put her best side to the camera and show herself off.

[jackfaire]

Oh thank god I wasn't the first one to say it sounds like bunk. Seriously didn anyone catch the "They gave me work I couldn't possibly do because I was pretty"

Wait you mean they expected you to do the job you were hired to do? And they only did so because you were pretty?

"According to her lawsuit Citibank gave her targets she could not meet because she was not properly trained."

Uhm what the hell does that have to do with them not liking that your pretty?

[Red Panda]

Its a shame how men will do whatever they can to keep a good looking woman from being successful. I guess if they can't control her the next best thing is to fire her.

[jackfaire]

Its a shame how men will do whatever they can to keep a good looking woman from being successful. I guess if they can't control her the next best thing is to fire her.

In my experience if the good looking woman is discrimnated against in the office it is by everyone else doing her work.

[HEMI6point1]

Here is another link which includes photos of her so-called "offending" outfits: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-...rk-in-a-bank/1 - they're mixed in with photos from a glamour-style shoot.

She's not a 10 but damn if any straight male doesn't think she's attractive they're nuts.

And I just have to point this out:

Lorenzana, a 33-year-old single mom, pointed out female colleagues whose clothing was far more revealing than hers: "They said their body shapes were different from mine, and I drew too much attention," she says.

Translation: I'm jealous because you're attractive to the opposite sex and I'm not, so I want to hate on you.

[Rapscallion]

I've read the Village Voice article in more depth. If she does have documentation to back up what she alleges, then it's pretty damning of her ex-employer. They claimed she was late on two consecutive dates, yet the place wasn't open? She sent several emails to HR requesting necessary training so she could do the job properly?

After reading that, I'm a bit more comfortable with her version of events, though there's something still not quite right about it. Can't put my finger on it.

Rapscallion

[HEMI6point1]

I think Chicago is a work at will state, so they can make an excuse to fire you for anything.

According to the article the managers retaliated by raising her job goals to the point where they were impossible to meet or giving her things she was not trained for. Pretty low if you ask me.

And BTW since they relaxed the dress code at my job I can say that what some girls wear at my place is more provocative than what this woman wore.

[fireheart17]

OK, breaking this down:

Tight pants issue: if she was wearing tight pants, was told to change them and then she did, I can see some legitimacy.
If she wore a pencil/A-line skirt/long skirt, fine-they're businesslike (by A-line, I mean slightly above or at knee length), if she wore a miniskirt, then I'd see some legitimacy on the boss's part.

The at-will issue: I can't really say much on that part, since like the UK, you need a damn good reason to get fired in Ausland (you can cut staff if you're having budgeting issues, however in those cases, you cut the most recent hires first).

Also Raps, if a company plays favourites, regardless of whether the woman was pretty or not, they could hit her with being late if she was even 30 seconds over.

In short, I'm in two minds. I'd like to see the actual documentation first.
I'd also like to see any proof of the training she has, if any.

Oh and the short piece they did in the paper down here had the line "she'd look pretty in a burqa." o.O

[crazylegs]

Looking at the second article she really didn't seem all that distressed to be demanding sacks of cash so she can carry on living.

But if her employer had told her not to wear suits then she has a point.

Something is missing from this, and I'm not sure what.

[HEMI6point1]

She was at one point told her pants were too tight. Not "your ass is so phenomenal it's distracting the men". No. "Your pants are too tight." A tactful way of saying, "Please don't dress like a two-dollar whore when coming to work."

I don't wear tight pants to work. It's a professional environment. Tight clothes are inappropriate.

If you advance far enough into the gallery in the 2nd article you'll see the dreaded turtleneck that caused a fuss. There is a reason why I quoted you, actually.

This woman has a knockout hourglass figure, with a bubble butt and large breasts. Ask any woman with that figure and they'll tell you it's very tricky to get clothes to fit loosely. Because of this, it's rather absurd to penalize her for having a figure when she cannot help what she looks like.

[tropicsgoddess]

I think Chicago is a work at will state, so they can make an excuse to fire you for anything.

According to the article the managers retaliated by raising her job goals to the point where they were impossible to meet or giving her things she was not trained for. Pretty low if you ask me.

And BTW since they relaxed the dress code at my job I can say that what some girls wear at my place is more provocative than what this woman wore.

I dunno about you Hemi but with the way some of the girls at my job dress up could put a fifty-cent hooker to shame. I once saw a girl with a skirt so short she didn't have to bend over to show the world her "goods". Shoot, at the tamest you might see some with stripper heels. As for the "too sexy for work" deal, I'm not quite sure what to make of it...part of it sounds fishy to me, but part of it sounds somewhat legit. Particularly the bit where the managers started giving her impossible goals to meet as retaliation or as a way of firing her on paper without looking discriminatory is a low ball tactic and seemed somewhat legit to me.

[BlaqueKatt]

Maybe they were uncomfortable with her because they didn't feel like they could not hit on her over long periods of time. So instead they wanted her to wear a tent or a Burka," says Tuckner.

of course because not wearing tight clothing=burka/tent-sorry but her "pencil skirt" looks more like a "hobble skirt" to me.

and as we all know all men are just pure lust-driven animals that cannot contain themselves