Baneleaf wrote:
Actually, if you listen to the interview, the outfits in question were very business oriented. She had several suits that were custom tailored. She was told not to wear turtleneck sweaters because of the way they fit her.
According to her and her attorney.
Baneleaf wrote:
And the pictures of her various wardrobe choices that were supposedly the reason she was fired were very professional looking.
I didn't see any pictures of any wardrobe choices except the one she was wearing, and there was no indication as to whether that outfit was one of the outfits in question.
Baneleaf wrote:
The problem is she worked for a company run by a bunch of old fucks. She is VERY attractive, especially to old white fucktards that need pills to get hard. And rather than try to control themselves around a woman who was much to smart for them to flirt with and think they would get away with it, the got rid of her. If she was, or at least played the part, of the dumb top heavy air head they wanted to her to be, she would still be there. I hope she sues them stupid and they have to explain to the stockholders why they fired someone because she made them want to touch their no no spots in the middle of the day.
Just imagine if she was 400 pounds and wearing tight fitting outfits, they would have moved her to the mail room and not fired her because none of them wanted to fuck her in the copy room. Just a though.
All of what you said here "may" be true, BL, but I sincerely doubt that Citibank fired a woman for being attractive. This is a huge company, and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of hotties working there. What we have to consider here is that we've only really heard from her and her attorney, who each have a large interest in promoting their side of things publicly. And the media eats up the "sexy wronged employee" angle. This smacks of attempting to light a public relations fire so that Citibank will settle OOC.
