Woman claims she was fired for being too attractive.
- Thread starter Sewblon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sorry, this article is too one-sided for me to make an accurate judgment. However, from what I've read I've come to think she's full of herself and the article only tries to follow Sensationalism News Reporting... I'd take all of this with a grain of salt.
She actually has no right to sue them. None. So she's wasting tax payer dollars... good going. A company may fire anyone for any damned reason at all except when regarding Age or Physical and Mental Disabilities... and even then it gets a bit choppy. She doesn't have a case in the world. I have yet to see any proof of any sort that proves her point.
The fact she went and took those pictures afterwards... yeah, that's not going to help her case either... in fact she's proving the Opposing Counsel's point. So, I see nothing good in her favor.
She actually has no right to sue them. None. So she's wasting tax payer dollars... good going. A company may fire anyone for any damned reason at all except when regarding Age or Physical and Mental Disabilities... and even then it gets a bit choppy. She doesn't have a case in the world. I have yet to see any proof of any sort that proves her point.
The fact she went and took those pictures afterwards... yeah, that's not going to help her case either... in fact she's proving the Opposing Counsel's point. So, I see nothing good in her favor.
Male robber walks into a bank.
Goes to the teller planning on robbing them.
Sees this woman.
Stares at her face instead.
Knowing that there are some stupid people out there, this would work as a security deterrent to a level.
Goes to the teller planning on robbing them.
Sees this woman.
Stares at her face instead.
Knowing that there are some stupid people out there, this would work as a security deterrent to a level.
hmmm while its stupid that they fired her for being too hot...shes not exactly too hot...and whats up with the somewhat racy and modeling pictures in that article? lol totally at odds with what shes trying to say.
Indeed. I couldn't find any statements from the bank. Then again, the insipid 4-page PR piece kissing her ass kind of dulled my brain. Not the pictures. She's not a D&D nymph.Mr. Grey said:
I've seen this kind of thing before: Someone gets fired for being terrible at their job, and they accuse management of some kind of discrimination/harassment. Never heard an excuse this shallow, though.
After reading the story, I think it really is a case of some men just not able to think about anything but boning her whenever they see her- which is just unprofessional on their part. Because its not like shes wearing anything revealing or suggestive- she just has a FINE figure...
And even though I would like to make a deposit at this teller's window (obligatory sexual innuendo) I'm always attuned to look for bitchiness when a woman states that she is "too hot" as a way for explaining her problems
And even though I would like to make a deposit at this teller's window (obligatory sexual innuendo) I'm always attuned to look for bitchiness when a woman states that she is "too hot" as a way for explaining her problems
I detect a definite ridge in the male opinion here.
The 'omg she's so hot [insert sexual pun here]' crowd and the 'she's attractive but this is so overblown' people - I wonder what's causing these differences?
I'm guessing that it has something to do with the individual's interaction skills with women of her 'calibre'.
On a personal level however, I think she does have sufficient grounds to make a case. While employers have the right to fire someone for almost any reason that they see fit, the fact is that her physical appearance was not diminishing her work ethic or productivity so there are definitely grounds for legal action.
Unless she was using her curves to conceal large quantities of bank notes, of course.
The 'omg she's so hot [insert sexual pun here]' crowd and the 'she's attractive but this is so overblown' people - I wonder what's causing these differences?
I'm guessing that it has something to do with the individual's interaction skills with women of her 'calibre'.
On a personal level however, I think she does have sufficient grounds to make a case. While employers have the right to fire someone for almost any reason that they see fit, the fact is that her physical appearance was not diminishing her work ethic or productivity so there are definitely grounds for legal action.
Unless she was using her curves to conceal large quantities of bank notes, of course.
Why is she working in a bank? Modeling would suit her better, and it'd pay the bills (and then some)!Sewblon said:
Honestly, I would fire her for being too hot. Just looking at her picture? yeah, I would NOT be able to stand working with her. Too distracting.
Always consider the source. The caption down below, "This photo, unlike the others, was arranged by her lawyer for her suit. " Gee, do you think maybe her attorney would be stretching the truth in her favor? Maybeeeee.Xanadu84 said:
You don't seem to grasp just how inaccurate making up an analogy on the fly is. Yes, the sentence structure is roughly the same as what I said, but the sentiment is so radically different that it's far beyond the typical Apples vs Oranges [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges] territory.
This indicates you're too ridiculously oblivious to the subtle details of a situation to be of any judge to it. You can chalk that up to ad hominem if you want, but considering you're telling me that you're criticizing me, the intrinsic value of the speaker would seem to be your chosen topic.
No, if you're going to criticize me over anything, criticize me about the egotism of arguing with people half my age. Exactly where do I get off kicking children like this? Tsk.
Are you serious? You're being serious. Man, take a break from the Internet, you're so overemotional about this issue that you're apparently inventing absolutely ridiculous words to put in my mouth.
Go back and read my original post on this thread, I clarified far beyond the shadow of these ridiculous knee-jerks, and I would appreciate it if you take the effort to read. Until you demonstrate at least that effort, you've demonstrated only unworthiness to trade words with on this issue.
Always consider the source. The caption down below, "This photo, unlike the others, was arranged by her lawyer for her suit. " Gee, do you think maybe her defense attorney would be stretching the truth in her favor? Maybeeeee.geldonyetich said:
You don't seem to grasp just how inaccurate making up an analogy on the fly is. Yes, the sentence structure is roughly the same as what I said, but the sentiment is so radically different that it's far beyond the typical Apples vs Oranges [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges] territory.
This indicates you're too ridiculously oblivious to the subtle details of a situation to be of any judge to it. You can chalk that up to ad hominem if you want, but considering you're telling me that you're criticizing me, the intrinsic value of the speaker would seem to be your chosen topic.
No, if you're going to criticize me over anything, criticize me about the egotism of arguing with people half my age.
Are you serious? You're being serious. Man, take a break from the Internet, you're so overemotional about this issue that you're apparently putting absolutely ridiculous words in my mouth.[/quote]
Well, no arguing with rampant, blinding sexism I guess. Shes a person. Hot or no, she has the same rights as other people.
Also, criticizing someone for having a faulty argument is not ad hominen. Calling someone ridiculously oblivious, however...
Oh, damn, you sure showed me. I'm such a sexist!Xanadu84 said:
Since, after all, you know me well enough to brand me such off of two sentences you can't read right.
I hope it turns out her boss was a woman, you might learn something.
...is called for when it's true.
That bit I put in bold? Actually in a way it totally is. Under controlled lab conditions otherwise healthy and intelligent men who were exposed to the presence of an attractive woman fared abysmally worse at cognitive tasks than their control group fellow lads.The article said:
That little nugget of information adds a whole new dimension to the issue: is it sexism/'beauty-ism' (I swear to god that one will be in Webster's by year's end) if their employers are actually right?