Claim: Citibank fired me for being too attractive

by Walter Olson on June 3, 2010

Debrahlee Lorenzana of Queens, N.Y. says managers at Citibank considered her turtlenecks and tailored pencil skirts “too distracting” and asked her to stop wearing them. When she said that other employees wore similar garb, per her court papers, she was told that wasn’t relevant “as their general unattractiveness rendered moot their sartorial choices, unlike plaintiff.” [NY Post] More: Ted at PoL citing earlier coverage of Lorenzana’s lawyer in this space; Above the Law.

{ 2 trackbacks }

At Long Last Martindale Hubbell, Have You No Sense Of Decency? Have You No Shame? | Popehat
06.07.10 at 8:02 am
“Too hot for Citi” complaint, cont’d
06.19.10 at 5:58 am


1 David Eggers 06.03.10 at 12:48 pm

Let me guess, her boss is a jealous female. No man would A: be so dumb and B: tell an attractive female to dress less provocatively.

2 Bob Lipton 06.03.10 at 1:12 pm

Well, no straight one.


3 Aaron Worthing 06.03.10 at 2:18 pm

mmm, at the link are photos. i would suggest a close examination of the evidence.

seriously, i always thought it should go the opposite way. like there should be a weight limit for wearing spandex.

4 Joni 06.03.10 at 5:22 pm

Gee whiz, I’d have to consider that a compliment. Sigh…

5 Patrick 06.03.10 at 6:03 pm

There is a photo, among many others, of the plaintiff in the dress she wore to her job interview at the Village Voice article on this story:


In a truthful world, Citibank would defend this suit by showing that she was hired precisely because she’s so attractive.

6 Bruce 06.03.10 at 10:18 pm

Let me guess, Aaron … you think that little spandex number would look better on you than that beautiful young lady, right?

Yeah – figured as much.


7 Malcolm Smith 06.04.10 at 1:07 am

We had a similar situation in Australia, where a young lady complained she was told she was fired because her short shorts and long legs distracted the male workers. Presumably they were operating on the principle: “Don’t hire her; she has good legs.”

8 steve mansfield 06.04.10 at 7:41 am

Seems like a lot of sound and fury signifying very little. I agree the lady in question is attractive and based on the pictures I have seen her wardrobe is not out of line. I wonder if a fat ugly female who wears short tight clothing in public could be cited for violating visual pollution/ public nuisance laws (I’m joking)

9 Aaron Worthing 06.04.10 at 8:07 am


Actually i was riffing off the common observation that women who are waaay too fat for spandex, often wear it anyway.

And i don’t think my wife would approve of your comment. ;-)

On a more serious note, it seems odd that she is going really far to promote that she was too hot for work. seems like this is all really about publicity.

10 Rliyen 06.04.10 at 10:24 am

And New York is an “at will” state and this gets play because?

Being attractive is not a protected class, so unless she has substantial proof of being discriminated (read too many SC discrimination cases and the burden of proof is unusually high for plaintiffs) I see the case going nowhere, or being settled for nuisance value.

11 Bumper 06.04.10 at 10:33 am

Case Over

Turns out the buxom beauty has a mandatory arbitration clause in her employment agreement with Citibank.

Perhaps she was hoping to get hired as a model or was just announcing her availability to a less puritanical bank.

12 Jack Wilson 06.07.10 at 8:28 am

I’m worried the same thing could happen to me: I’m sure women find it hard to concentrate when I show up to work in shorts.

Comments on this entry are closed.