ok...this might sound very hilarious but the reality of the situation is still baffling...and am yet to find out anywhere in the worlds constituition where it says a man or woman cant be employed be such a person is way too pretty, beautiful or attractive for such position...
this is the dilemma of a A 33-year-old single mother who has filed a lawsuit against Citigroup, after Citibank allegedly fired her for being too attractive.[can you believe that???]
Debrahlee Lorenzana was let go from the New York branch of the bank after being told that her choice of clothes made her 'too distracting' in the largely male-dominated office.
Lorenzana's lawsuit alleges that her bosses told her 'as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear'; hence, YOU ARE FIRED!
Lorenzana was given a list of clothes she would no longer be able to wear - including pencil skirts, fitted suits and polo necks.... 'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I said, "You gotta be kidding me! I was like, Too distracting? For who? For you? My clients don't seem to have any problem."
'Where I'm from, women dress up - like put on makeup and do their nails - to go to the supermarket..
'I was raised very Latin. We're feminine. A woman in Puerto Rico takes care of herself’ she said.
A statement from Citigroup read: 'We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will defend against it vigorously.
'We respect the privacy of all of our employees and therefore cannot comment more specifically on this litigation, this former employee's overall performance, or the reasons for her termination - which an arbitration panel must resolve.
'Citi is committed to fostering a culture of inclusion and providing a respectful environment in the workplace. We have a strong commitment to diversity and we do not condone, or tolerate, discrimination within our business for any reason
....hmnn....what do you guys think? i think its highly preposterous, Period!
1 comment:
The firing of Lorenzana by the citibank shows the double standard of the West. This has been the crux of arguments by the religious minorities living in the west. Now the truth comes out in the case of Lorenza. Why not allow her to show off her revealing bosom if she wanted to. why restrict her on dresses. Why not she be provocative.
A Muslim woman who wants to cover more will ask similar questions. Why not I cover as much as I wish to. why can not I be less provocative and less sexy? If the western countries are true to what they say about the fundamental rights, why interfere with the fundamental rights of Lorenza.In the same breathe why interfere with the fundamental rights of the Muslim women. It is sheer hypocrisy, bias, pretentious culture and open double standard. Even in the liberal West, it is an offence for women to go half naked. There are restrictions on dress even in Europe, is the contention of Muslims. The difference is only in degree when it comes to modesty.
Absolute freedom is non-existent in any culture. Being social animals, men and women have animal magnetism and sex appeal. One can never deny the fact that when a young man looking at a woman revealing a major part of her firm, round, shapely and bulging breasts gets sexually excited and would have train of quite often lewd thoughts in his mind. Hence religious laws on dress code. The West judges one set of rules as barbaric simply because OF ALIEN CULTURE BASE and another set as liberation
Post a Comment