All week, I've been seeing articles about the lawsuit filed by a former Citibank employee who claims that she was fired because her bosses claimed that she was too attractive. As someone who knows a little about employment law, it's touched a nerve.
My first reaction was, really? Too sexy for you job? This just seems like some sleazy lawyer looking for his name in the paper.
But when you look at the allegations a little more closely, there might be something to it. She was singled out from her coworkers. She was told what she could and could not wear. She was judged not on abilities or performance, but based on her looks. If you believe the plaintiff, which I always do, she was fired for it. If you believe her, she was treated differently because of gender, and definitely has a claim.
But still, too sexy? With those pictures? Why would the law want to protect this woman? And this isn't even a jury trial, since she had signed an arbitration agreement.
It all comes down to a strategic decision by the lawyer. He could have played it as a straight gender case, a strong claim that, at best, might get a short column on the daily news. Instead, he made it a flamboyant case about sex, taking sexy pictures that he knew would get into the paper. Its a harder case for him now. He's got to prove that she's sexy and, even more difficult, get an arbitrator to like her. If its a female arbitrator, that's rough (female arbitrators are notoriously skeptical to begin with). If it's a male arbitrator, that's even harder (he's got to tell his wife he ruled in favor of the sexy lady? "Sorry, honey, that's privileged.").
But the lawyer has successfully crafted an argument that led to national exposure and even earned an op-ed from Maureen Dowd. Once you realize it's this guy, it makes some sense.
My first reaction was, really? Too sexy for you job? This just seems like some sleazy lawyer looking for his name in the paper.
But when you look at the allegations a little more closely, there might be something to it. She was singled out from her coworkers. She was told what she could and could not wear. She was judged not on abilities or performance, but based on her looks. If you believe the plaintiff, which I always do, she was fired for it. If you believe her, she was treated differently because of gender, and definitely has a claim.
But still, too sexy? With those pictures? Why would the law want to protect this woman? And this isn't even a jury trial, since she had signed an arbitration agreement.
It all comes down to a strategic decision by the lawyer. He could have played it as a straight gender case, a strong claim that, at best, might get a short column on the daily news. Instead, he made it a flamboyant case about sex, taking sexy pictures that he knew would get into the paper. Its a harder case for him now. He's got to prove that she's sexy and, even more difficult, get an arbitrator to like her. If its a female arbitrator, that's rough (female arbitrators are notoriously skeptical to begin with). If it's a male arbitrator, that's even harder (he's got to tell his wife he ruled in favor of the sexy lady? "Sorry, honey, that's privileged.").
But the lawyer has successfully crafted an argument that led to national exposure and even earned an op-ed from Maureen Dowd. Once you realize it's this guy, it makes some sense.
1 comment:
Also, considering that she was on teevee talking about how much she loves plastic surgery and wanting to snag a rich dude, she actually might've orchestrated all this exposure herself.
Post a Comment