Forget Jail - Too Hot For The Bank

Originally Posted by Debrahlee
"That's what I want to be: t**s on a stick."

Ok. I don't get this one. Call me dense, but I don't.

She thinks she is a lolly pop?

 

The clouds part and everything becomes clear. It sounds like she wanted to be a playboy model instead of a banker. She lost her job at the bank and Playboy won't want her because they'd have to use a heavy airbrush to remove stretchmarks from giving birth. She could maybe get a job being a trophy wife but she's going to have trouble finding a rich guy who wants a pre-made family. Perhaps her future lies in being a masseuse at a bathhouse, or maybe an escort. Or maybe I could take her in. Her kid would make a nice tax write-off and I'd be as happy as any man could expect to be, for a little while anyways.

Her hokey excuse of saying that she's making a case against the bank for all women who have been the victim of sexual harassment doesn't wash. If you didn't want to have men notice you, you wouldn't have got breast enhancements, liar!

I swear, I wish I was a woman so I could get away with all this stuff and get breast enhancements so I could find a rich guy to foot the bill until the end, or better yet, get a divorce and take half of everything he has and then find another dummy willing to do the same thing.

Not saying all women do this, just some. Makes sense. Our economy isn't back to being strong yet, if it ever will be again. I guess I might do the same thing if I were a single female parent.

 

From what I've seen, women who get discriminated against are usually not given the opportunity to show that they can do. Sexual harrassment usually has nothing to do with those cases.

 

She'll get nothing and like it!...

Fired for being “too sexy” not a wrongful dismissal

Workplace Law by Daniel A. Lublin
METRO CANADA
June 23, 2010 2:00 p.m.

Reading last week’s headlines about the case of Debrahlee Lorenzana, the New York banker claiming she was fired because her good looks distracted her male colleagues, raised an alarm as to the public’s various misconceptions of critical issues in workplace law. Here are just a few of them.

In one article, the author claimed that Lorenzana’s wrongful dismissal case against her employer sparked a debate over “workplace sexual harassment.” Turning this case into an issue of sexual harassment could indeed be an interesting development in workplace law – except that it is wrong.

The Supreme Court has defined sexual harassment as conduct of a sexual nature that adversely affects the employee’s job or work environment. Lorenzana claims she was fired because she refused to change her attire when asked by her employer. So her claims are not really based on sexual harassment at all.

Was this a wrongful dismissal? Most employees believe they cannot be fired without a good reason. They are mistaken. Non-union employees have no “right” to continued employment, however long or meritorious their service. They can be fired as long as they are given severance. Whether Lorenzana’s employer wanted to fire her because it didn’t like her or how she dressed would make no difference as long as it paid her severance.

Is it discriminatory to rely on looks when firing an employee? In another article, the author suggested that if Lorenzana was treated differently because of her appearance, it could constitute discrimination under human rights laws. This would also be a major development in human rights law, except that it is also wrong. “Physical appearance” by itself is a not a prohibited ground of discrimination in any Canadian jurisdiction, unless a person’s appearance is being judged due to a personal characteristic such as race or colour. That is, while it would be contrary to human rights laws to judge an employee based on her colour, whether or not she is attractive receives no protection at all.

– Daniel A. Lublin is an employment lawyer with the law firm Whitten & Lublin LLP. Reach him at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

 

The bank would have settled to avoid a lawsuit and further bad publicity. I don't think it was sexual discrimination either.

What about the Playboy pictorial? :eyebrow:

 

I did not see anything unusually sexy on the photos, so it must be her behavior, which gave that impression. And human being is supposed to be able to adjust her behavior... And to NOT distract her workmates... I think I support the bank in this matter.