With the case being filed citibank isn't saying anything. Without seeing the complaints and the paperwork on their end there is no way to tell what happened. The base complaint doesn't make a lot of sense tho so I'm leaning slightly towards the companies side. If more information comes out at the trial I'll gladly change my opinion.
that bitch needs to see LA/OC office girls and then try and say shes too hot. you wanna talk distracting?!
She definitely fills out her suits nicely, and I'd probably be smacked for staring too long, but I've seen hotter women who work in finance around the city. My problem with this is not necessarily with them firing her for cause or for no cause. New York is (like most) an at-will employment state and organizations can terminate without giving a reason. If she can prove that she was fired for being "too hot" then she has a legitimate case. If her superiors and peers were stupid enough to leave a provable trail, then too bad so sad. My problem is with organizations requiring employees to sign employment contracts stipulating arbitration and no access to the legitimate legal system. I understand org's desires to keep themselves out of court, but that just means that issues like this will continue to be settled out of court without any legal precedent set to ward it off in the future.
im wondering how no body has said anything about the naked painting party pictures yet. you know you f'in looked at it. hahahaha
I hire purely on tits and ass alone.....smart bitches are nothing but trouble. I usually have to employ two hot chicks for a job that requires one smart ugly one, I figure I'm just fueling the economy. God bless america!
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but why is a turtleneck a distracting article of clothing worthy of being banned?