Is it illegal to fire someone for being too sexy?

[crushing]

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

 

[Sukerkin]

Firstly, the chaps at the bank who complained should get a grip ... no, not in that way!

If a sexily shaped and attired lass makes you unable to do your job then she'd better be sitting in your lap or you probably have a serious issue with lack of self-control.

She is rather splendid looking I agree (tho' the artificial augmentation is a negative point) but I've worked with women for most of my life - indeed, when I was a curator, I was the only man there! Whilst there may indeed be a problem with 'eye line' control every now and again if too many delights are on show, it shouldn't destroy your whole working day.

Secondly, if she has been fired for unprofessional behaviour or something akin to "bringing the image of the company into disrepute" then they should just say so and move on.

 

[Avenger2616]

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.
I've seen the pictures, she's easy on the eyes but not distractingly so. I think someone got told she was beautiful a few too many times.

 

[Carol]

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.

 

[MJS]

The discrimination case is because -- she's (surprise!! LOL) female.

So if it was a male that was wearing tight pants, and walking around with his shirt open, it wouldn't be? Sorry, but IMO, it shouldn't matter. So should every female get out of a speeding ticket because they're wearing a mini? How about if their chest is popping out of their shirt? If she was in violation of a dresscode policy, if there was one, or causing disruption in the workplace, because of her attire, then she was wrong, female or not.

RandomPhantom can probably offer more about why they feel it is a solid case.

I"m listening.

 

[MJS]

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.

Well, I stand corrected. If this was the case, then it sounds like the whole office is out of control. Whether or not she's hotter than the other women who're dressing like her, is no excuse for the boss to pick and choose the attire for the sexy women vs. the not so sexy.

I wonder how much work was actually getting done at the company, seeing their main focus was a fashion show.

 

[Ken Morgan]

What's that old saying?
No matter how good looking she is, someone, somewhere is tired of putting up with her ****.

 

[Carol]

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.

 

[Archangel M]

She sounds like she is attention addicted to me...

 

[Sukerkin]

I tend to agree, Angel but I do have to concur with Carol with regard to what should be the focus of disciplinary action in the work-place. If dressing inappropriately is the problem then the records should show that she's been warned about it.

Mind you, the pictures shown don't look inappropriate for a business environment on the whole. We had a highly placed (and very attractive too) female exec visit our company today and she wasn't dressed any 'worse' than that.

Of course, as has been said, all we have to go on is the news story. The reality of things may be very different once it hits the legal arena of a tribunal {or whatever the US equivalent is}.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

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.

 

[David43515]

I wish I could recall where I first heard this story so I could link to it. If I recall correctly, the bank officers` big issue wasn`t how much skin she was showing and they weren`t saying her clothes were too tight....just that she filled them out too well so they were asking her to either wear baggier clothes or layer up so that her figure would be less noticable.

 

[jks9199]

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.

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.

 

[xJOHNx]

You 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?

I would check all three out if that should even happen

 

[Balrog]

She's pretty, but she ain't all that hawt.

 

[MJS]

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.

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.

 

[Avenger2616]

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.

 

[MJS]

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 you could find that article, that'd be great. There may've been something posted in this thread, but everything that I've looked at, and again, I may've missed it, but everything that I've seen has been focused on the way she dressed, not job performance.

 

[Carol]

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 are decided in favor of the employer. When the employer knows they were in the wrong, they do all they can to settle...which usually works out best all around. It saves the employer the court costs, saves the employees background check, lawyers still get paid...everybody wins. :lol:

 

[Carol]

I am reading what I wrote and realized I skipped a very important pair of words.

This should have said

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...