A woman in New York filed suit alleging she was fired essentially because she was too attractive. See report. According to the lawsuit allegations, the former employee at Citibank was criticized by male co-workers because her curvaceous figure was too distracting in standard business attire and high heels. The plaintiff claimed in the lawsuit that other women dressed more provocatively than she did but suffered no ill treatment. The plaintiff brought that to management’s attention. But,
according to the suit, the plaintiff, Debrahlee Lorenzana, was told that the general unattractiveness of the other other women rendered their attire moot. This treatment and her termination amounted to sex discrimination, said the plaintiff.
A friend of Ms. Lorenzana praises her work at Citibank. She said Ms. Lorenzana does indeed turn men’s heads and some men turn into "complete idiots around her." But, that’s not her problem and should not be her problem, notes the friend.
Ms. Lorenzana’s lawsuit is moving to arbitration due to an employment agreement.
Actually, it would be hard to show sex discrimination if you cannot show how men are treated better. On the other hand, this sort of treatment would not occur were she not female. It is not particularly fair to treat anyone differently because of the way they look. But, Title VII is not about being fair. It is about treating one gender differently than another gender. Arbitration hearings are secret. So, we may never know the result.
Every so often someone will claim that discrimination is gone or mostly gone. Yet, evidence of bias pops up everywhere. In a recent trial in a patent infringement case in Marshall, Texas, a witness from Israel was testifying. The defense lawyer was cross examining the Israeli witness. Asking about the witness’ lunch meeting at Bodacious Barbacue, the defense lawyer asked what he ate. "I bet not pork," he offered. Apparently, the defense lawyer thought this comment was humorous. 
We should all serve our country half as well as 1SGT Saenz. Rest easy, Top. You did well.
A frequent issue arises concerning the right of an employer to deduct debts from an employee’s paycheck. Texas Workforce Commission recognizes three occasions when an employer may make such deductions: 1) in response to an order from a competent court, such as for child support; 2) state or federally mandated withholdings; and 3) when authorized in writing by the employee. See
My colleague in California, Gene Lee, has written a couple of nice entries about how to read an employment contract. See
so he tried a pain killer used by his wife. He took one pill. Three days later, the plant had an unannounced drug test and the friend tested positive for some controlled substance. He presented notes from his doctor and his wife’s doctor. But, still, despite 40 months without a blemish, he was fired.