Totally Random, Not Monetarily Compensated People Weigh In On The "Too Hot For Citi" Chick

Author:
Updated:
Original:

Hey hey hey! Look what we have here-- it's a bunch of random Citi customers who apparently remember Debrahlee Lorenzana and have graciously offered to weigh in on the situation, offering quotes that, though they may not help her case against Citi, might certainly attract the attention of certain organizations who require their employees to be "distractingly hot," not that that's what Debs and the lawyer who made her do a photoshoot that showed her in work appropriate clothing such as the ensemble at left are angling for whatsoever! Here's what the character witnesses had to say:

* "I would walk the extra few blocks just to go to this one to see her," said publicist Matt Saulk, 36, who favored the Rockefeller Center branch where Lorenzana worked over one on W. 52nd St. "I would think Citibank would want employees like her - it brings in the customers."

* "Male customers would often stare," said Jessica Ramos, 29, who works in advertising. "It was rather funny, actually."

* "She's a pretty girl," said investment banker Jack Russel, 45. "Maybe she was just making the other girls jealous."

* Harold Mack, a paralegal, fondly recalled Lorenzana wearing "business-casual type things." "Whew, she was a hot one," said Mack, 26. "I'm sad she's gone, but she did stick out. I know she distracted me whenever I came into the bank."

Male Customers Were Eager To Catch A Glimpse [NYDN]

Related

Appellate Court Willing to Entertain the Possibility that Citi Was Not Committing Fraud

I've had some fun these last few days proposing counterintuitive theories for why Citi might not suck as much as you probably think it does and it's nice to see others joining in the pastime, even if this sounds a little far-fetched: The district court’s logic appears to overlook the possibilities (i) that Citigroup might well not consent to settle on a basis that requires it to admit liability, (ii) that the S.E.C. might fail to win a judgment at trial, and (iii) that Citigroup perhaps did not mislead investors. That piece of rank conjecture is from the Second Circuit's opinion on an appeal* of Judge Rakoff's rejection of the settlement between the SEC and Citi over some mortgage-backed securities. Here's DealBook: