Lauren Odes, Fired For Being Too Hot

[Rey C.]

Gloria Allred is to feminism what Al Sharpton is to blacks.

Not trying to be picky, as I know what you mean. But Allred is a feminist (in addition to being an ambulance chaser). Her distorted social views pretty well represent those of her ilk, IMO. I don't think I'd say the same of Blacks and Sharpton. So it's more like: "Gloria Allred is to women what Al Sharpton is to blacks." Both speak for extremists within their groups, but not necessarily the larger groups.

 

[PlumpRump]

Well, considering there are a few federal and probably state rules that disallow some types of discrimination, and a state unemployment agency has to at least know the reason for somebody being let go a company could probably get into trouble after a while if it never gave reasons to anybody for why they fired a person.

If a civil suit is ever brought up, not ever acknowledging anything, can in of itself also seem very suspicious to a jury and make it seem like a company has something to hide.

No, an employer may terminate an at-will employee for any reason or no reason. Showing cause is unnecessary in the termination of at-will employees. A civil suit wold not stand up against an employer for termination of an at-will employee, even without cause. The only time people get in trouble, it seems, is when they do give a reason. Theoretically, an employer could even fire someone because they were black, or homosexual, or for any discriminatory reason as long as they kept their mouth shut to the employee and other members of the company as to the reason.

There are a lot of business owners that would do well to remember this phrase, and this phrase alone when terminating employment of an employee: "Regrettably, we no longer require your services."

A. At-Will Defined
At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.
At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/at-will-employment-overview.aspx

 

[Mr. Hyde]

Not trying to be picky, as I know what you mean. But Allred is a feminist (in addition to being an ambulance chaser). Her distorted social views pretty well represent those of her ilk, IMO. I don't think I'd say the same of Blacks and Sharpton. So it's more like: "Gloria Allred is to women what Al Sharpton is to blacks." Both speak for extremists within their groups, but not necessarily the larger groups.

And Sharpton is black, and his views are held by a lot of blacks. My point was that both pretend to care about their respective causes, but they're really just hucksters out to make a name for themselves.

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

This quote from from the story tells you all you need to know:



She's an attention whore looking for an easy payday or a TV series.

This is also another case of confusing large breasts with an overall attractive appearance. Yes, she has big boobs. In no way, shape, or form is she too pretty.





Side note: Employers have a right to set a dress code for their business. If you as an employee don't adhere to it, you deserve to get fired.

This. I didn't read the article, but if they asked her to dress more appropriately (warned her) and she refused, then they have every right to shitcan her busted ass.

 

[Johan]

This. I didn't read the article, but if they asked her to dress more appropriately (warned her) and she refused, then they have every right to shitcan her busted ass.

They didn't even let her change clothes :

The blonde 29-year-old claims she was fired from her temporary position by telephone after leaving the office to change her tight black dress at the request of her employers.

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

They didn't even let her change clothes :

Says her. Something tells me it was more like:
Them: "Lauren, stop dressing like that, we're tired of warning you"
Her: "Like, whatevs!"
then the next day, she showed up wearing the same type of shit
Them: "Lauren, you're fired, we warned you"
Her: "NOOOOO, Let me go change really quick!"
Them: "Sorry, hit the bricks, bitch"

 

[PirateKing]

Jersey standards...

 

[Rey C.]

My point was that both pretend to care about their respective causes, but they're really just hucksters out to make a name for themselves.

A name and a buck. I agree with you.

 

[julialee89]

I have only one thing to say about this: JOIN FREEONES!

 

[Harley Spencer]

Says her. Something tells me it was more like:
Them: "Lauren, stop dressing like that, we're tired of warning you"
Her: "Like, whatevs!"
then the next day, she showed up wearing the same type of shit
Them: "Lauren, you're fired, we warned you"
Her: "NOOOOO, Let me go change really quick!"
Them: "Sorry, hit the bricks, bitch"

This is pretty much what I was thinking. I doubt it was her first time wearing clothes she shouldn't have been wearing. She most likely showed up to work in inappropriate clothes multiple times before, and perhaps management decided to give her one last shot to abide by company policy, and in the midst of all, they said, "You know what? This is ridiculous. She's done." If a person can't be reliable and consistent, can't do their job accordingly, can't dress according to the dress code, then they do not have good work ethic. A manager shouldn't have to constantly tell someone to do something that the person knows they should be doing.

Girl needs to grow up.

 

[AlienLove]

You didnt get fired cause your too hot, you got fired cause you dress and probably act like a slut, that doesnt make for a productive office environment.

 

[bobjustbob]

Since I don't know all of the facts, this is the best time to give my opinion. Both PlumpRump and PirateKing are 100% correct. At-will is on the books in NJ. It is a protection for the collection of unemployment benefits. When an employer fires an employee and presents no reason, or terminated through no fault of the employee, then the employee may start to collect from day one. If you are fired for a reason then the employer can delay benefits for up to the first 8 weeks. Maybe deny them totally if there was a criminal act involved. Any termination with cause may be appealed to collect delayed benefits. The burden of proof is upon the employer.

In such a case, the employer needs to show that the employee had knowledge of such violations. Written onto an employee handbook or other such memos distributed. There must also be a policy of how such infractions are to be dealt with. What I am saying is that there must be a company policy that the employee and the employer come to terms with regarding the terms of employment. If you don't like the new rules then quit. But these rules are to be spelled out to cover all employees unless specific exceptions are so noted.

Here is where we come to the disciplinary actions. These actions must be addressed within a timely manner. They can't go back and write you up for calling out 6 months ago. Shit doesn't work that way. The employer has a series of "write ups." The employer presents the documentation to the employee in written form for the employee to review. The employee may dispute the charges in any way by entering it onto the form. All sign and that is how it is filed. Both cover their own asses when the shit comes up later.

I have been involved in this for many years on both ends. Any time that I have ever presented a write up. I allow the employee to present their case and urge them to write it down and sign it. Most employees get frustrated with a write up. They will make their case verbally yet not write it down or sign it. The shit goes into your file anyway and they can't go back later on to give their rebuttal.

I don't know how this case is going to turn out, but if there is no documentation, those Jews are going to have to pay.

BobJustBob