Woman Too Hot To Be A Banker

Can a woman actually be too hot to be a banker?

Evidently her boss at this bank thought so and fired her for her hotness.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-...ork-in-a-bank/




I wonder what line of work she might be better suited for?

I saw this story on the news the other day. She's smokin' hot!!! I can find at least one "job" she can do for me.

I think women should be rewarded for their hotness, not penalized for their beauty.

Sadly, some businesses even today still refuse to hire beautiful women because they will distract the men from their work.

Personally, I would much prefer to go to work where there are beautiful women to look at instead of dogs.

In the professional world it should be solely about the ability to do a job.

The excuses given for her dismissal by her former employer are lame to say the least.

This was the video of the incident on the news. This is a good website as well. The WSHH models there are ridiculously bootyful.

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/video...z6Qj85KsZ8902h

Was she just eye candy or a competent professional?

I don't know what position she had, but banks pay their employees notoriously low wages. Only the upper crust makes any money.

She should be a provider. She'd probably make more money and wouldn't be fired for being too sexy.

Was she just eye candy or a competent professional? Originally Posted by pyramider

She said she was a bank manager. Although citybank claims there lawsuit is due to her work performance. But who knows until it goes to court.

Unfortunately, this case will never go to court because the devious bank made her sign a form stating disputes would be handled by an arbitrator.

Because Citibank made Lorenzana sign a mandatory-arbitration clause as a condition of her employment, the case will never end up before a jury or judge. An arbitrator will decide. Citibank officials won't comment on the suit.

Looks like this lady will have to play out this case with a ummh,
. . . "stacked deck".

Unfortunately, this case will never go to court because the devious bank made her sign a form stating disputes would be handled by an arbitrator.

Because Citibank made Lorenzana sign a mandatory-arbitration clause as a condition of her employment, the case will never end up before a jury or judge. An arbitrator will decide. Citibank officials won't comment on the suit.

Looks like this lady will have to play out this case with a ummh,
. . . "stacked deck". Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

How did CitiBank "make" her sign it? Arbitration agreements like that are very common and there is nothing sinister or devious about them.

How did CitiBank "make" her sign it? Arbitration agreements like that are very common and there is nothing sinister or devious about them. Originally Posted by PullT

I agree. If she didn't want to agree to the arbitration clause, she could have turned down the job.

How did CitiBank "make" her sign it? Arbitration agreements like that are very common and there is nothing sinister or devious about them. Originally Posted by PullT

Arbitration is a devious ploy because it stacks the cards in favor of the company.

Just because something is common does not make it right.

That only makes it common.

Companies do not do employ arbitration out of a altruistic sense of justice, but purely from a financial need of CYA.

When a company has to settle a case in court they have little control over how the jury will rule, but an arbitrator chosen by the company will naturally be more sympathetic to their side than to the person filing the suit.

The company made her sign it as a condition of employment.

but an arbitrator chosen by the company will naturally be more sympathetic to their side than to the person filing the suit.

The company made her sign it as a condition of employment. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Actually, the company does NOT choose an arbitrator. Normally, a list of 3 is provided, and each side strikes one, leaving the remaining one as the arbitrator to hear the case.

Yes, if she wanted to be employed by the company, she had to agree to their rules, arbitration included. After all, it is their company. But, she could have refused the arbitration clause and went looking for work at another company. I understand she is now working for another bank, so she's obviously not unemployable.

BTW, as a general rule, I hate arbitration clauses. They are generally inserted by a company that writes a boilerplate and oppressive contract. Nevertheless, they are legal, are recognized by the courts of this land who generally defer to arbitration clauses before they even let a case be litigated. If you believe in the US system of civil justice, you gotta go along with the rules.