Ok. I get it! You are an idiot!
I thought your political commentary was crazy. Now this retarded diatribe. I have some swampland in florida you need to consider. Please PM for details. Stupid is what stupid says on AP.
Happy Mongering All except spamming Esten. Toymann.
Ps. You really buy this shit. IALOTFLMAO!
That would be a new one for Citi
Maybe Citi has changed its ways. A few years ago, Citi did just the opposite. The private banking group hired a junior person (smoking-hot, dumb-as-a-post blond) from a competitor to improve the eye candy for PB clients. Unfortunately, they took her from the group with which I was doing business. Not long after her departure, I stopped using them.
I for one am all in favor of appropriate displays of cleavage and camel toes in the work place, provided the individual making the display fits within the parameters of what I find attractive. I am going to go check out the Citi branch in the Chrysler Bldg to see what the tellers look like.
That said, I smell BS in her story. If an employees behavior is in violation of corporate policy, and continues unabated after warnings and is a distraction to the department, adios. I suspect that her attorney either smells smoke or he is counting on at least getting the 'cost of defense' door prize for bringing suit. She is also getting lots of free publicity for her 'modeling' career.
I would be shocked if a company with 265,000 employees didn't have HR policies in place and the good sense to avoid something like this. If she was fired 'for cause' I would bet that HR has detailed records of infractions, warnings, reminders, etc. Keep in mind that the people in HR don't want to be looking for work any more that anyone else. If they fired her 'for cause' and that cause is well documented, then she'll likely lose, unless she can prove that she was specifically discriminated against. If she was fired 'without cause' I would expect that it was part of broader layoffs and she is trying to make a case out of unrelated facts (previous reprimands regarding attire and alleged inappropriate comments) If her termination was an isolated event (I. E. She was the only one let go) and it was 'without cause,' then she's got a better chance because now Citi will need to prove why they fired her.
As for the other details they throw out there, they are window dressing and red herrings. The dress code for tellers may very well be different than for corporate positions. Her opinion is irrelevant as to degree of "appropriateness' between her attire and that worn by others. If the comments about being hot were from co-workers and not superiors with the ability to fire her, they are just in appropriate workplace comments (since she is not claiming on-the-job discrimination, she's claiming wrongful termination)
Of course, since this story was likely placed by the attorney's PR flak, there is nothing in here on the employer's point of view.
If this is true, I'd love to hear the manager's discussion with HR when he looked to get rid of her. "Well, gee, it's like this." and the HR response "err. If you think we are going to fire her cause she gives you wood all day, you're mistaken."
