# Is it illegal to fire someone for being too sexy?



## Ken Morgan (Jun 14, 2010)

http://www.slate.com/id/2256622/

_Debrahlee Lorenzana made news this week with the unusual civil rights claim that her employer, Citigroup, has discriminated against her because she is a hottie. "At five-foot-six and 125 pounds  she is J-Lo curves meet Jessica Simpson rack meets Audrey Hepburn elegancea head turning beauty," __drools the Village Voice__. According to her lawsuit, Lorenzana is so smoking hot that her co-workers couldn't concentrate on their jobs. Her bosses eventually demanded that she revampor, rather, de-vampher wardrobe: They banned tight pants, pencil skirts, high heels, and clingy turtlenecks. When Lorenzana pointed out that other women in her office wore more revealing clothes than she did, Lorenzana says her bosses replied, in essence: "Yeah, but they aren't as hot as you are." And when Lorenzana came to work, still looking just as jaw-droppingly sexy as ever, Citibank fired her. Believe it or not, Lorenzana is not the first person to claim in court that she's too sexy for her job. In 2005 __librarian Desiree Goodwin sued Harvard University__ for discrimination, complaining that she was denied promotions because she was "seen merely as a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits, low cut blouses, and tight pants."_ 

Well...its nothing a burka couldn't fix....but why would you want to??


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 14, 2010)

I'd hire her in a SECOND!! :fanboy:


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 14, 2010)

Although I have to wonder if she isn't using this as some sort of publicity scam...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20006646-504083.html

Theres like 30+ photos of her...is this the news or a fashion shoot?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 14, 2010)

From what I've read, her discrimination claim is rock solid (as are probably most of her male co-workers).  She was deliberately singled out because of her appearance even though her attire and behavior was no different from others in the same work environment.  

This isn't to say you can't be fired for your attire, of course.  Work in any business office with nose ring and wifebeater, you'd legitimately get canned. But that's clearly not the case here.


----------



## Fiendlover (Jun 14, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> From what I've read, her discrimination claim is rock solid (as are probably most of her male co-workers). She was deliberately singled out because of her appearance even though her attire and behavior was no different from others in the same work environment.
> 
> This isn't to say you can't be fired for your attire, of course. Work in any business office with nose ring and wifebeater, you'd legitimately get canned. But that's clearly not the case here.


 
I agree.  I think it's completely ridiculous.


----------



## blink13 (Jun 14, 2010)

Hopefully one CAN'T get fired for being too sexy, or I'd never be able to keep a job.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 14, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> Hopefully one CAN'T get fired for being too sexy, or I'd never be able to keep a job.


It is just our cross to bear


----------



## blink13 (Jun 14, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Although I have to wonder if she isn't using this as some sort of publicity scam...
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20006646-504083.html
> 
> Theres like 30+ photos of her...is this the news or a fashion shoot?



One wonders.  I better go check again....


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 14, 2010)

I used to wear a shirt to work that was quite tight and showed off my manly physique beautifully.

Then one day the boss demanded that I stop wearing the shirt as it was distracting the female staff.

I was absolutely shocked and dismayed that he felt this way about my work wear , he called me into the office and asked me what I had to say in my own defence.

So I said 

_" I'm a model you know what I mean_
_And I do my little turn on the catwalk_
_Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah_
_I do my little turn on the catwalk "_

And furthermore I went on to say

_" I'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt_
_So sexy it hurt_
_And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan_
_New York and Japan"_

_I'm too sexy for my shirt .............    _

Apologies to Right Said Fred.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 14, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Although I have to wonder if she isn't using this as some sort of publicity scam...
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20006646-504083.html
> 
> Theres like 30+ photos of her...is this the news or a fashion shoot?


 
You know, I'm not quite sure what to believe, i think we need more photo's of her in order to make the correct decision. I wouldn't want to rush into anything...

Anyone want to bet this woman will be on a TV show, a movie and in Playboy all within the next 12 months?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 15, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> I used to wear a shirt to work that was quite tight and showed off my manly physique beautifully.
> 
> Then one day the boss demanded that I stop wearing the shirt as it was distracting the female staff.
> 
> ...



Damn. You beat me to it


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 15, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I'd hire her in a SECOND!! :fanboy:



Depends. If those are fake boobs, she can peddle them elsewhere. I hate fake boobs.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 15, 2010)

If that is the *only *reason she was fired than it is a load.  It sounds like she was not in violation of a company dress code policy and pointed out others were wearing similiar clothing.

Just throwing this out there.  What was her behavior at work?  Why was it so distracting?  Was she merely going about her business and doing her work, or did she flirt alot of draw attention to her figure?  If that was the case, then the company should have noted those behaviors and logged complaints if someone made them (not saying this is what happened, just a hypothetical).


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 15, 2010)

I really don't know what the world is coming to, but....

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1069958/barmaid-fined-for-showing-too-much

and

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1070063/Women-held-at-World-Cup-over-beer-miniskirts

Hmm.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jun 15, 2010)

I feel for her.  I've had the same problem. It's horrible being this beautiful.


----------



## crushing (Jun 15, 2010)

The Last Legionary said:


> I feel for her. I've had the same problem. It's horrible being this beautiful.


 
Being from the opposite end of the looks-spectrum I have been fortunate not to have to deal with the issues people like you and this woman deal with day-in and day-out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 15, 2010)

I look too much like Kevin Smith to know what anyone's talking about here.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 15, 2010)

The Last Legionary said:


> I feel for her.  I've had the same problem. It's horrible being this beautiful.


You gotta stop looking in the fun house mirrors...

If the reports of her treatment were correct, then she's got a case.

Unfortunately, my cynical side wonders just how much she got away with not doing or doing less than well... and whether she'll end up with some sort of model/tv/talk show gig out of this...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 15, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> You gotta stop looking in the fun house mirrors...
> 
> If the reports of her treatment were correct, then she's got a case.
> 
> Unfortunately, my cynical side wonders just how much she got away with not doing or doing less than well... and whether she'll end up with some sort of model/tv/talk show gig out of this...


 
+1

None of us are privy to her personnel file.


----------



## MJS (Jun 15, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> http://www.slate.com/id/2256622/
> 
> _Debrahlee Lorenzana made news this week with the unusual civil rights claim that her employer, Citigroup, has discriminated against her because she is a hottie. "At five-foot-six and 125 pounds  she is J-Lo curves meet Jessica Simpson rack meets Audrey Hepburn elegancea head turning beauty," __drools the Village Voice__. According to her lawsuit, Lorenzana is so smoking hot that her co-workers couldn't concentrate on their jobs. Her bosses eventually demanded that she revampor, rather, de-vampher wardrobe: They banned tight pants, pencil skirts, high heels, and clingy turtlenecks. When Lorenzana pointed out that other women in her office wore more revealing clothes than she did, Lorenzana says her bosses replied, in essence: "Yeah, but they aren't as hot as you are." And when Lorenzana came to work, still looking just as jaw-droppingly sexy as ever, Citibank fired her. Believe it or not, Lorenzana is not the first person to claim in court that she's too sexy for her job. In 2005 __librarian Desiree Goodwin sued Harvard University__ for discrimination, complaining that she was denied promotions because she was "seen merely as a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits, low cut blouses, and tight pants."_
> 
> Well...its nothing a burka couldn't fix....but why would you want to??


 
I'll start by saying that this woman is indeed, very attractive.   As for the rest of the story...I'd be interested in knowing what the dress code is for this company.  Now, theres nothing wrong with dressing nice, but there is a time and a place for dressing professional, and dressing sexy/slutty.  Was she spoken to prior to termination?  If so, was she told about the dresscode, if there is one, and that she needs to follow it?  Did she ignore warnings?  Dont know.  

IMO, if there were rule violations, then I dont see how she can use the discrimination card, but if she received no warnings, if there is no dress code, and she was not in violation of anything, then I'd say she'd have more ground.


----------



## crushing (Jun 15, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Depends. If those are fake boobs, she can peddle them elsewhere. I hate fake boobs.


 
http://www.businessinsider.com/debrahlee-lorenzana-boob-jobs-2010-6


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2010)

Firstly, the chaps at the bank who complained should get a grip ... no, not in that way!  

If a sexily shaped and attired lass makes you unable to do your job then she'd better be sitting in your lap or you probably have a serious issue with lack of self-control.

She is rather splendid looking I agree (tho' the artificial augmentation is a negative point) but I've worked with women for most of my life - indeed, when I was a curator, I was the only man there!  Whilst there may indeed be a problem with 'eye line' control every now and again if too many delights are on show, it shouldn't destroy your whole working day.

Secondly, if she has been fired for unprofessional behaviour or something akin to "bringing the image of the company into disrepute" then they should just say so and move on.


----------



## Avenger2616 (Jun 15, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Depends. If those are fake boobs, she can peddle them elsewhere. I hate fake boobs.


 They are.  Turns out CNN found a clip of her from Discovery Health preparing for her 2nd boob job.  Turns out this isn't the first time she's been "discriminated against" for being too sexy...  Her previous M.O. is to walk when she's corrected for her job performance, guess that wasn't an option this time for some reason and she ended up getting canned.  
   I've seen the pictures, she's easy on the eyes but not distractingly so.  I think someone got told she was beautiful a few too many times.


----------



## Carol (Jun 15, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'll start by saying that this woman is indeed, very attractive.   As for the rest of the story...I'd be interested in knowing what the dress code is for this company.  Now, theres nothing wrong with dressing nice, but there is a time and a place for dressing professional, and dressing sexy/slutty.  Was she spoken to prior to termination?  If so, was she told about the dresscode, if there is one, and that she needs to follow it?  Did she ignore warnings?  Dont know.
> 
> IMO, if there were rule violations, then I dont see how she can use the discrimination card, but if she received no warnings, if there is no dress code, and she was not in violation of anything, then I'd say she'd have more ground.



The discrimination case is because -- she's (surprise!!  LOL) female.  RandomPhantom can probably offer more about why they feel it is a solid case.


----------



## MJS (Jun 15, 2010)

Carol said:


> The discrimination case is because -- she's (surprise!! LOL) female.


 
So if it was a male that was wearing tight pants, and walking around with his shirt open, it wouldn't be?  Sorry, but IMO, it shouldn't matter.  So should every female get out of a speeding ticket because they're wearing a mini?  How about if their chest is popping out of their shirt?  If she was in violation of a dresscode policy, if there was one, or causing disruption in the workplace, because of her attire, then she was wrong, female or not.




> RandomPhantom can probably offer more about why they feel it is a solid case.


 
I"m listening.


----------



## MJS (Jun 15, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> From what I've read, her discrimination claim is rock solid (as are probably most of her male co-workers). She was deliberately singled out because of her appearance even though her attire and behavior was no different from others in the same work environment.
> 
> This isn't to say you can't be fired for your attire, of course. Work in any business office with nose ring and wifebeater, you'd legitimately get canned. But that's clearly not the case here.


 
Well, I stand corrected. If this was the case, then it sounds like the whole office is out of control.  Whether or not she's hotter than the other women who're dressing like her, is no excuse for the boss to pick and choose the attire for the sexy women vs. the not so sexy. 

I wonder how much work was actually getting done at the company, seeing their main focus was a fashion show.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 15, 2010)

What's that old saying?
No matter how good looking she is, someone, somewhere is tired of putting up with her ****.


----------



## Carol (Jun 15, 2010)

And this is why corrective actions must focus on *bad behaviour*.

All good Ken if someone is tired of her ****.  But then she needs to be _written up_ _for her_ ****.  If she is unprofessional on the job, and had been written up for...I dunno....say...insubordination, having a snitty attitude, for using coarse or unprofessional language, or not fulfilling the job responsibilities...then we wouldn't be hearing about this because the issue was *her behaviour*. 

Write her up because of how her body parts look even when they are covered in a suit....or because of how her hair looks when its naturally wavey instead of artificially straightened....then one is saying that the issue is *her body*.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 15, 2010)

She sounds like she is attention addicted to me...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2010)

I tend to agree, *Angel* but I do have to concur with Carol with regard to what should be the focus of disciplinary action in the work-place.  If dressing inappropriately is the problem then the records should show that she's been warned about it.  

Mind you, the pictures shown don't look inappropriate for a business environment on the whole.  We had a highly placed (and very attractive too) female exec visit our company today and she wasn't dressed any 'worse' than that.

Of course, as has been said, all we have to go on is the news story.  The reality of things may be very different once it hits the legal arena of a tribunal {or whatever the US equivalent is}.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 15, 2010)

During college, I worked in a group home treatment environment. We had to let a woman go because she was so sexy she set off the male residents just by walking in. Some would act out just to be restrained by her.

I think they offered her a job in the office or at the womens' house across town, but she simply left the company.


----------



## David43515 (Jun 15, 2010)

I wish I could recall where I first heard this story so I could link to it. If I recall correctly, the bank officers` big issue wasn`t how much skin she was showing and they weren`t saying her clothes were too tight....just that she filled them out too well so they were asking her to either wear baggier clothes or layer up so that her figure would be less noticable.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 15, 2010)

bushidomartialarts said:


> During college, I worked in a group home treatment environment. We had to let a woman go because she was so sexy she set off the male residents just by walking in. Some would act out just to be restrained by her.
> 
> I think they offered her a job in the office or at the womens' house across town, but she simply left the company.


That's a very unique circumstance -- and honestly, she probably had recourse if she'd chosen to take it.  The justification here is the safety and necessary order of the facility.


----------



## xJOHNx (Jun 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> You know, I'm not quite sure what to believe, i think we need more photo's of her in order to make the correct decision. I wouldn't want to rush into anything...
> 
> Anyone want to bet this woman will be on a TV show, a movie and in Playboy all within the next 12 months?


I would check all three out if that should even happen


----------



## Balrog (Jun 16, 2010)

She's pretty, but she ain't all that hawt.


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2010)

Carol said:


> And this is why corrective actions must focus on *bad behaviour*.
> 
> All good Ken if someone is tired of her ****. But then she needs to be _written up_ _for her_ ****. If she is unprofessional on the job, and had been written up for...I dunno....say...insubordination, having a snitty attitude, for using coarse or unprofessional language, or not fulfilling the job responsibilities...then we wouldn't be hearing about this because the issue was *her behaviour*.
> 
> Write her up because of how her body parts look even when they are covered in a suit....or because of how her hair looks when its naturally wavey instead of artificially straightened....then one is saying that the issue is *her body*.


 
This is exactly what I asked earlier.  These are important questions, that, AFAIK, none of us here, know the answer to.  Of course, if that article is correct in saying that everyone in the office dressed 'sexy' and she was the only one singled out, then IMO, there is no ground to fire here, as it seems everyone is in violation.


----------



## Avenger2616 (Jun 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> This is exactly what I asked earlier. These are important questions, that, AFAIK, none of us here, know the answer to. Of course, if that article is correct in saying that everyone in the office dressed 'sexy' and she was the only one singled out, then IMO, there is no ground to fire here, as it seems everyone is in violation.


   I'll try to find the article, but IIRC she was terminated not for her appearance but for performance- she was counselled for failing to meet quotas and her appearance was some tangental part of her personnel file.  There's a quote in the article I read that she'd endured this sort of treatment before at other banks and left before they could terminate her.  
   Short version- she's a whiner who quits jobs the first time she hears the words "Further performance of this type will lead to termination".  Problem is, I'm betting she discovered what everyone else has- the job market sucks right now, so she ended up having to hang around and get canned.  
   She's hoping to cash in on the fact that a jury is likely to be a bit biassed against Citibank and get a payday.


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2010)

Avenger2616 said:


> I'll try to find the article, but IIRC she was terminated not for her appearance but for performance- she was counselled for failing to meet quotas and her appearance was some tangental part of her personnel file. There's a quote in the article I read that she'd endured this sort of treatment before at other banks and left before they could terminate her.
> Short version- she's a whiner who quits jobs the first time she hears the words "Further performance of this type will lead to termination". Problem is, I'm betting she discovered what everyone else has- the job market sucks right now, so she ended up having to hang around and get canned.
> She's hoping to cash in on the fact that a jury is likely to be a bit biassed against Citibank and get a payday.


 
If you could find that article, that'd be great.   There may've been something posted in this thread, but everything that I've looked at, and again, I may've missed it, but everything that I've seen has been focused on the way she dressed, not job performance.


----------



## Carol (Jun 16, 2010)

Avenger2616 said:


> I'll try to find the article, but IIRC she was terminated not for her appearance but for performance- she was counselled for failing to meet quotas and her appearance was some tangental part of her personnel file.  There's a quote in the article I read that she'd endured this sort of treatment before at other banks and left before they could terminate her.
> Short version- she's a whiner who quits jobs the first time she hears the words "Further performance of this type will lead to termination".  Problem is, I'm betting she discovered what everyone else has- the job market sucks right now, so she ended up having to hang around and get canned.
> She's hoping to cash in on the fact that a jury is likely to be a bit biassed against Citibank and get a payday.



If that is the case, then she may have a tough road.  Something like 85% of wrongful termination are decided in favor of the employer.  When the employer knows they were in the wrong, they do all they can to settle...which usually works out best all around.  It saves the employer the court costs, saves the employees background check, lawyers still get paid...everybody wins. :lol:


----------



## Carol (Jun 17, 2010)

I am reading what I wrote and realized I skipped a very important pair of words. 

This should have said



Carol said:


> If that is the case, then she may have a tough road.  Something like 85% of wrongful termination *court cases *are decided in favor of the employer.  When the employer knows they were in the wrong, they do all they can to settle...


----------

