Is This Woman Too Hot To Work At Your Office? (Update)

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

If you work at Citibank, the answer would apparently be yes, according to Debrahlee Lorenzana, who is suing the bank on the grounds that it fired her for being really good looking. So good looking, apparently, that it distracted them from the hard work they were doing at Citi and had to be stopped. Her boss Craig Fisher and one of his colleagues tried to make her less hot, allegedly, by pulling Lorenzana into an office one day and telling her she had to stop wearing turtlenecks, pencil skirts, three inch heels or "fitted" business suits. When Lorenzana brought up the matter of other females wearing way more revealing clothes, she was told those women's shapes were different from mine, and I drew too much attention." Lorenzana like this was kind of a bunch of bull shit ("I couldn't believe what I was hearing," Lorenzana recalls. "I said, 'You gotta be kidding me!' I was like, 'Too distracting? For who? For you? My clients don't seem to have any problem') so she decided not to change her wardrobe but rather fug herself up a bit by not wearing make-up and not blowing out her hair. She also wrote a couple letters to HR letting them know she was not pleased with how the meeting went but never heard back and her attempts to downplay how hot she was didn't work either.

"I could have worn a paper bag, and it would not have mattered," she says. "If it wasn't my shirt, it was my pants. If it wasn't my pants, it was my shoes. They picked on me every single day." Still, she continued to dress up for work—her brand of femininity is also cultural. "Where I'm from," she says, switching into Spanish to explain it, "women dress up—like put on makeup and do their nails—to go to the supermarket. And I'm not talking trashy, you know, like in the Heights. I was raised very Latin, you know? We're feminine. A woman in Puerto Rico takes care of herself. The Puerto Rican women here put down our flag."

A month or so later she received a message from Craig noting that she was being put on final notice for, among other things lagging sales, but there was some shadiness involving the fact that she was cited for being late on days the bank wasn't even open. Craig also worked Lorenzana's last nerve when he asked her to move some heavy boxes and told her to put on high heels to do so (she was wearing flip-flops at the time which you would think would've passed the dress code). She sent a couple of letters and emails to some VPs (who never responded) and then put in for a transfer, which was granted a few weeks later. Unfortunately, the gig they gave her in the new office was as a telemarketer and Lorenzana's title is "business banker." Didn't much matter though because she was soon canned from the Citi.

In August, her manager at the Rockefeller Center branch—a woman—sat her down and fired her. The female manager mentioned the problems related to her clothing at the previous branch. She did not mention work performance, Lorenzana says. The manager said she was sorry, but Lorenzana wasn't fit for the culture of Citibank.

Lorenzana knows this is all bull shit, as does her lawyer.

Her attorney, Jack Tuckner, who calls himself a "sex-positive" women's-rights lawyer, is the first one to say his client is a babe. But so what? For him, it all boils down to self-control. "It's like saying," Tuckner argues, "that we can't think anymore 'cause our penises are standing up—and we cannot think about you except in a sexual manner—and we can't look at you without wanting to have sexual intercourse with you. And it's up to you, gorgeous woman, to lessen your appeal so that we can focus!"

So they've filed this suit, which will unfortunately never be heard by a judge or jury but will instead go to arbitration. Tuckner is confident they've got a case though, but just to make sure, Tuckner "had a professional photographer shoot her in various work outfits in his office near Wall Street," to prove there's nothing wrong here.

Update: Citi had this to say in a statement: "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will defend against it vigorously. We respect the privacy of all of our employees and therefore cannot comment more specifically on this litigation, this former employee's overall performance, or the reasons for her termination- which an arbitration panel must resolve. Citi is committed to fostering a culture of inclusion and providing a respectful environment in the workplace. We have a strong commitment to diversity and we do not condone, or tolerate, discrimination within our business for any reason."

Related

Woman Whose Ex-Hedge Fund Husband Demanded A Cut Of Her Shoes Just Rubbing It In His Face At This Point

Back in June, hedge fund manager Daniel Shak sued his ex-wife, Beth, over assets he claimed she'd hid during the couple's divorce. Said assets were Beth's shoes, which Daniel alleged were kept in a "secret room" and were worth approximately $1 million, 35 percent of which he wanted. It was a bit unclear as to why he was going after the footwear collection three years after the two split (though using the proceeds to relaunch his fund was a possibility) but the heart wants what the heart wants. Anyway, today brings just a couple follow-ups on the Shaks, both of which are slightly more exciting for Beth than Dan. 1. He won't see a single pair of Loubs. A civil suit brought by poker professional Dan Shak against his ex-wife, fellow poker pro Beth Shak, regarding her extensive shoe collection was dismissed in a court in New York after Mr. Shak advised his attorneys that he didn’t want to pursue the issue any further...the opening arguments apparently doomed the case in the eyes of the male Shak. Ms. Shak testified to Judge Daniele that her shoe fetish grew as a response to repeated denials of emotional attention from Mr. Shak. “I would not call these shoes a collection, I would call them a sickness at a particular point in my life,” Beth Shak testified to Judge Daniele as she recounted how Dan Shak would refuse her attempts at romantic encounters, according to the Post. “I tried to get him to go to therapy with me, but it just didn’t work,” the Post quotes Ms. Shak as testifying. “I was so unhappy with my marriage that all I did was shop. There was nothing to our relationship…he and I had nothing.” Further into her testimony to the court, Ms. Shak stated that not only did Mr. Shak know about the shoes but even signed off on all the bills as they came before him. After a break following Ms. Shak’s testimony, Mr. Shak apparently had a change of heart regarding the lawsuit. His attorneys informed Judge Daniele that their client wanted to withdraw the case, which Judge Daniele quickly granted. Looking square at Mr. Shak as she dismissed the case, Judge Daniele is quoted by the Post as stating, “Well, thanks for wasting everybody’s time.” 2. She's going into the shoe business! Now that that the suit is over, Shak, who has an image of a pair of Louboutons tattooed just below her waist, is concentrating one what's next — the launch her own line of shoes. Dan Shak Drops Lawsuit Against Beth Shak Following Opening Arguments [PND] Sexy Singles 2012: Beth Shak [Philly]