Depends. If those are fake boobs, she can peddle them elsewhere. I hate fake boobs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/debrahlee-lorenzana-boob-jobs-2010-6
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Depends. If those are fake boobs, she can peddle them elsewhere. I hate fake boobs.
They are. Turns out CNN found a clip of her from Discovery Health preparing for her 2nd boob job. Turns out this isn't the first time she's been "discriminated against" for being too sexy... Her previous M.O. is to walk when she's corrected for her job performance, guess that wasn't an option this time for some reason and she ended up getting canned.Depends. If those are fake boobs, she can peddle them elsewhere. I hate fake boobs.
I'll start by saying that this woman is indeed, very attractive. As for the rest of the story...I'd be interested in knowing what the dress code is for this company. Now, theres nothing wrong with dressing nice, but there is a time and a place for dressing professional, and dressing sexy/slutty. Was she spoken to prior to termination? If so, was she told about the dresscode, if there is one, and that she needs to follow it? Did she ignore warnings? Dont know.
IMO, if there were rule violations, then I dont see how she can use the discrimination card, but if she received no warnings, if there is no dress code, and she was not in violation of anything, then I'd say she'd have more ground.
The discrimination case is because -- she's (surprise!! LOL) female.
RandomPhantom can probably offer more about why they feel it is a solid case.
From what I've read, her discrimination claim is rock solid (as are probably most of her male co-workers). She was deliberately singled out because of her appearance even though her attire and behavior was no different from others in the same work environment.
This isn't to say you can't be fired for your attire, of course. Work in any business office with nose ring and wifebeater, you'd legitimately get canned. But that's clearly not the case here.
That's a very unique circumstance -- and honestly, she probably had recourse if she'd chosen to take it. The justification here is the safety and necessary order of the facility.During college, I worked in a group home treatment environment. We had to let a woman go because she was so sexy she set off the male residents just by walking in. Some would act out just to be restrained by her.
I think they offered her a job in the office or at the womens' house across town, but she simply left the company.
I would check all three out if that should even happenYou know, I'm not quite sure what to believe, i think we need more photo's of her in order to make the correct decision. I wouldn't want to rush into anything...
Anyone want to bet this woman will be on a TV show, a movie and in Playboy all within the next 12 months?
And this is why corrective actions must focus on bad behaviour.
All good Ken if someone is tired of her ****. But then she needs to be written up for her ****. If she is unprofessional on the job, and had been written up for...I dunno....say...insubordination, having a snitty attitude, for using coarse or unprofessional language, or not fulfilling the job responsibilities...then we wouldn't be hearing about this because the issue was her behaviour.
Write her up because of how her body parts look even when they are covered in a suit....or because of how her hair looks when its naturally wavey instead of artificially straightened....then one is saying that the issue is her body.
I'll try to find the article, but IIRC she was terminated not for her appearance but for performance- she was counselled for failing to meet quotas and her appearance was some tangental part of her personnel file. There's a quote in the article I read that she'd endured this sort of treatment before at other banks and left before they could terminate her.This is exactly what I asked earlier. These are important questions, that, AFAIK, none of us here, know the answer to. Of course, if that article is correct in saying that everyone in the office dressed 'sexy' and she was the only one singled out, then IMO, there is no ground to fire here, as it seems everyone is in violation.
I'll try to find the article, but IIRC she was terminated not for her appearance but for performance- she was counselled for failing to meet quotas and her appearance was some tangental part of her personnel file. There's a quote in the article I read that she'd endured this sort of treatment before at other banks and left before they could terminate her.
Short version- she's a whiner who quits jobs the first time she hears the words "Further performance of this type will lead to termination". Problem is, I'm betting she discovered what everyone else has- the job market sucks right now, so she ended up having to hang around and get canned.
She's hoping to cash in on the fact that a jury is likely to be a bit biassed against Citibank and get a payday.
I'll try to find the article, but IIRC she was terminated not for her appearance but for performance- she was counselled for failing to meet quotas and her appearance was some tangental part of her personnel file. There's a quote in the article I read that she'd endured this sort of treatment before at other banks and left before they could terminate her.
Short version- she's a whiner who quits jobs the first time she hears the words "Further performance of this type will lead to termination". Problem is, I'm betting she discovered what everyone else has- the job market sucks right now, so she ended up having to hang around and get canned.
She's hoping to cash in on the fact that a jury is likely to be a bit biassed against Citibank and get a payday.
If that is the case, then she may have a tough road. Something like 85% of wrongful termination court cases are decided in favor of the employer. When the employer knows they were in the wrong, they do all they can to settle...