Posted on 01/10/2006 8:27:23 AM PST by mlc9852
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
What no pictures?
Oh come on. What's the big deal.
photos?
They should be grateful that they are pretty. Otherwise they wouldn't have been hired and have the chance to pillage their new employer.
Will they say to the Jury; "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful"?
Like it's a bad thing to be the "Pamela Anderson of trading".
Like maybe she'd rather be the "Helen Thomas of trading"?
I'm not sure I understand the problem. If they were explicitly hired as "eye candy" then they have no case. If they were hired as day-traders on the strength of their looks then they got a nice job out of it.
Good looking and stupid. Isn't that always the way?
Without pictures, this story must be considered a HOAX.
When I was in the corporate world, we called these women "shakers". There were always a few in nebulous jobs no one could explain. Even though they weren't "management", they got invited to every management party and social function.
Cantor Fitzgerald did this all the time. There were even rumors that some of these women (girls, really) would double as "entertainment" for some of Cantor's clients.
Like maybe she'd rather be the "Helen Thomas of trading"?
You really know how to bring down a thread... ;(
Women: Ya can't live with 'em and ya can't live without 'em. (P.S. I'm female)
A sex-bias lawsuit should be based on NOT getting hired because of your sex. The men who applied for these positions are the ones who should be suing. Jeez....
Today's "feminist" seems to want to dress like a tramp and then sue you for harassment if you notice all the flesh hanging out....
I had this happen to me about 10 years ago...we did a lot of trade shows in the environmental arena and hired a really good looking gal to work in sales - a year later she filed a sexual harassment suit against my boss and I because we had hired her based partly on her looks, she claimed sexual harassment. Unbelievable.....our company settled with her for $50K and then showed her @ss the door....this sexual harassment stuff is way out of line, and soon, women won't be hired at all because of this BS.....
This kind of reminds me of the black guy who is suing because he was PROMOTED because he was black and failed because he was not qualified.
Basically, sue either way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.