Suit: bank hired women for "Eye Candy" freeps don't see the problem

[Loonman]

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/10/111123.shtml

Six female employees have filed a $1.4 billion class-action sex-bias lawsuit against an investment bank, claiming they were hired as "eye candy.”

According to the suit filed in Manhattan, one attractive female employee at the German bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC was openly called "the Pamela Anderson of trading” by her boss.

The six women – five of whom work in New York and one in London – also allege that executives brought prostitutes to the office for lunch.

Plaintiff Jyoti Ruta claims she was once pressured by a boss and a colleague to leave a dinner celebrating a deal so that male employees could go to a strip club, the New York Post reports.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555351/posts

To: mlc9852
They should be grateful that they are pretty. Otherwise they wouldn't have been hired and have the chance to pillage their new employer.

[KingFlorez]

1. Freeps are sickos

This kind of behavior is fine with them

[sakabatou]

12. Yep

[BobRossi]

2. Like...

When freeps are against gay activity unless it involves two good looking women.

[The Pain]

3. Morally wrong, yes

But if they were HIRED for the express purpose of being eye candy, like a showgirl at a car show, Then I really don't see where they are coming from by suing.

I think we are missing a large portion of the story to actually be able to form a strong valid opinion on this.

[MercutioATC]

4. Agreed.

Men are very visually-oriented. I think it's valid to claim that all else being equal an attractive female would be a better salesperson than an unattractive female (at least when selling to males).

Is it ethical? That depends on your ethical standards. It seems to me, though, that it DOES make good business sense.

[PassingFair]

6. Then it would probably surprise you to learn...

that men tend to be more on guard during business dealings with goodlooking young women. They think they will be "taken" and are actually LESS likely to commit to spending money (especially larger sums).

[MercutioATC]

8. I'd like to see the study behind that.

I'm not denying that certain men are that way. My personal observations have just been quite the opposite (whether it be which women get promoted or which waitress makes more money in tips). It's been my experience that attractiveness is good for business.

[sweetheart]

17. It depends how you use women in marketing

In preparing for a trade show, it is not uncommon to hire
some "pretty actresses" for a day, to stand by the trade show
booth and drag over people wearing expensive clothes. We used
to pay those women 500 bucks a day to do that job, and they
delivered impeccably in improved trade-show coverage. For
the 100K of doing a trade show, to skimp on the eye candy is foolish.
Especially given the FACT of the unlaid men in suits in wall street
finance. If a financier can't make a cool judgement whilst horny,
he's no business being on wall street in the first place.

In doing 1 on 1 marketing (sales), it sometimes helps to have a female
marketing assistant or somethin like that, who can function as this
eye-candy thing like at the trade show, but not so overt, and this
is part of a team-sale, given how finance-sales work... its team-to-team
selling, not a single meeting, but a dynamic showing that xyz company
comes through with the total sale, with polish, without cutting any
corners. Would you like some more krystal with your cocaine sir... :-)

Whatever it takes to land the 100 million dollar deal. Until capitalism
reforms, and advertizing reforms, young women will be used this way, as
businesses extract "full value" from their employee assets.

[democrat_patriot]

5. So, their complaint is their pretty AND employed??

eom.

[Squatch]

7. Wow, suing because they are pretty and have a job.

Now I've heard it all.

[Missy Vixen]

9. Okay, this part's creepy

>The six women – five of whom work in New York and one in London – also allege that executives brought prostitutes to the office for lunch.<

There wasn't enough time outside of working hours for this activity?

Julie

[Straight Shooter]

10. "grateful that they are pretty"

In other words, being pretty is such a bonus in the working world. You get all sorts of extra goodies, like groping, lewd comments about what you wear no matter what you wear, hints of better pay for a little extra "work" time, maybe even threats of being fired for not being playful enough, whispered trash-talk followed up with, "Oh, come on, honey, I was just kidding. I'm a happily married man."

Gads, I can't even go there.

Yes, being good-looking is an advantage, but much more so for men than for women. Being tall is an advantage for men, a strong advantage. Being a white male is a major advantage. But I would never look at a tall white male and think that he didn't put any effort into his job if he was successful. (Certain cases of nepotism and cronyism being the exception.)

[lukasahero]

11. Excellent post - thanks for taking the OP seriously.

:yourock:

[smirkymonkey]

25. I can't even believe some of the freeper-like sexist comments on

this thread. It's sickening - what has happened to DU? Some people just don't F**ing get it.

[progressivebydesign]

13. Perfectly put!

From my own experience, being pretty really helps in some ways career-wise, but it also is a headache. Being distrusted and disliked no matter how capable or nice you are...

[Marie26]

14. Good post! nt

[LisaL]

15. What is that they are suing for?

They got hired. Are they saying they shouldn't have been hired because they are pretty?
I would understand if a less attractive woman sued if she wasn't hired based on her looks. And even then, I am not sure she could win anything. But considering these women get hired, what is that they are saying shouldn't have been done?

[lukasahero]

16. I think it might have more to do with the prostitutes brought into

the office, the less than comfortable work environment and being asked to leave company functions so the "guys" could move the party to the local strip clubs. But you know, that's their problem, right? :shrug:

[Squatch]

18. Are women not allowed to go to strip clubs?

[LisaL]

19. Of course women are allowed to go to strip clubs.

[lukasahero]

20. "pressured by a boss and a colleague to leave a dinner celebrating a deal"

Maybe they wouldn't have sued if they'd been invited. :eyes:

"Pressured by the boss" to leave a company "function" so that the guys could go where the women were not wanted. We've come a long way, haven't we baby?

[LisaL]

22. That's a billion dollar lawsuit?

Because the women were not invited into a strip club? I don't see it.

[lukasahero]

23. It's called sexual harassment and it's against the law.

[LisaL]

28. Sexual harassment would be if their bosses expected

some sort of sexual favors from these women. The women are not alleging that, are they?

[lukasahero]

32. Sexual harassment is more than that.

"In a unanimous decision in March, 1998 the Court said, when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated."

"or such conduct has the purpose or effect of ... creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment."

"The critical issue is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed."

http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/sexual_harassment/

Basically, whether or not they will prove their case remains to be seen, however, they are not suing just because they are "pretty". They are charging sexual harassment and have a right to sue and try to prove their case.

[Squatch]

29. They're going to have an uphill battle proving that one.

The "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" defense is not exactly the strongest position to take.

[LisaL]

21. I am not sure what prostitutes were doing in the office.

The way it sounds, they were brought in for lunch. Prostitutes are people too, and why shouldn't they eat lunch?

[ProfessorGAC]

24. I Understand Their Complaint. A Billion Dollars Seems Ridiculous

That, imo, reduces their credibility and minimizes any sympathy they might get, because it looks to the average people like a colossal money grab.
The Professor

[Cleita]

26. It looks like we are going back to the pre-feminist fifties and sixties.

All girls back then were hired for their youth and good looks unless they were a really good bookkeeper, which businessmen, even then, found more valuable than looks. I even knew a businessman who bragged that he hired older women, unlike his colleagues, because they were better workers and would work for less. That's how badly they needed their jobs.

I myself as a secretary often had to field off my boss's wife, who would drop in unexpectedly to take him to lunch. The truth was that he often had "lunch" with a call girl and several times I found myself lying to her that he was closing a deal in a business lunch meeting and couldn't be interrupted. At least he didn't bring the hookers to the office.

[LisaL]

27. I would understand if less attractive women

sued because they weren't hired. But suing someone because you were hired is kind of silly, IMO. Let alone wanting a billion dollars for it.

[Cleita]

30. The less attractive women wouldn't know, would they?

Nobody is going to tell them that they aren't pretty enough, or that they are too fat. They will be told that their experience and skills weren't up to the standards of the job. I used to see this happen all the time. Also, they discriminated against married women and those with children because it was felt they would either be getting pregnant soon, or if they had children, they would be taking time off for child problems.

Also, black women were discriminated against as well. I remember a black women who typed 80WPM on her typing test at a place I worked at and she was told it wasn't fast enough. I was astounded because I had been hired typing 40WPM. Back then it was almost impossible to get hired if you weren't an attractive, white women.

Anyone else had to apply for government jobs, which were the only employers who hired for skills and experience and not looks and race.

[LisaL]

31. I imagine less attractive women could find out.

If they knew a better looking applicant with less qualifications was hired, I suppose they could sue. But suing because you were hired doesn't make sense to me.l

[Cleita]

33. It's a ploy to call attention to the problem.

It will no doubt be settled out of court and those women will be quietly let go one by one with some plausible explanation, like downsizing or something.

This is why all workers need a union or professional organization of some sort to protect their interests. I wouldn't doubt that there is a lot of sexual harrassment involved there too that probably will come out in a court hearing if there ever is a court hearing.

Also, remember that those huge figures mentioned in lawsuits are astronomical because they are meant to be bargained down. So if they asked for what was reasonable they would get less. This way, by asking for something outrageous, they might get something more in keeping with what is fair.

[Missy Vixen]

35. I'm a former secretary, too

>I myself as a secretary often had to field off my boss's wife, who would drop in unexpectedly to take him to lunch.<

My various bosses weren't entertaining hookers for lunch, but there were often some interesting things going on in the office. For those who think they're getting away with it, ;-), the administrative staff knows all. If my employer treated me cordially and with respect, I'd happily walk through the nearest wall for him. If my employer treated me with disdain, I waited till the inevitable happened. It always did. ;-)

Julie

[Catherine Vincent]

34. $1.4 billion?

GTF outta here!