Today's dose of Irony

she was placed by a temp agency.

Just from reading the article where she's bitching that it's because she's hot she strikes me as a pain in the ass to be around.

Then again, we're really only getting her side of it, so for all we know she could have been acting the ho her entire week there.

regardless of how she acted or seems. she wasnt fired for her attitude. it was purely for her body. thats wrong period. how is anyone blaming her in this.

KATYB wrote: regardless of how she acted or seems. she wasnt fired for her attitude. it was purely for her body. thats wrong period. how is anyone blaming her in this.

Not sure.

This is her side of the story, but I noticed that at the very end of the article,

She added that, right after she was fired, Native Intimates sent out an e-mail to workers reminding them of the company’s conservative dress code.

If there is a dress code at the work place, and she is made aware of such dress code, but refuses to comply with it? Who is in the wrong?

Now, if the employer made the comments she "quotes" them as saying, then yes, she can totally claim harassment.

If she was not made aware of the dress code before she took the job, then I can understand some "words" on the first day, after which, I would assume she would have been made aware of the dress code in place. After such time, then yes, she should comply with said dress code, and if she refuses, I believe most places have a probationary clause that allows them to terminate an employee without express reason within the first three months (this is standard here where I live, and I am running on the assumption that it would be somewhat similar to other places)

Remember, you are reading a biased, sensationalized news report.

Grizz wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: Point one: She isn't that hot. Don't get me wrong, I'd play with her for sure, but she's not that hot. Point two: Gloria Allred... nuff said

+1

+2 pic was a major letdown after hearing about how "hot" she was.

Even from the article, which does seem one sided, I get the sense that both sides screwed up. If they actually said what she claims, she has a valid case for some discrimination. But they also have a valid case that she didn't obey company policy, which is a fire-able offense even for a permanent worker much less a temp. My guess is she gets some money but not as much as she hopes.