Looks Matter More than You Think.
Submitted by Erin on Mon, 06/07/2010 - 12:30
If you’ve spent your entire life being praised for your beauty, envied by others, and worshipped by men, I have some unfortunate news for you. That beauty that’s been such an asset, might now be your fatal flaw. If it happened to Debrahlee Lorenzana, it can happen to you. Lorenzana was an employee with Citigroup. Last year she found herself fired under unusual circumstances- she was too attractive, and became a distraction to her male employees with her “tall stature” and “curvaceous figure.”
So what exactly was Ms. Lorenzana wearing that was so distracting to her male employees that they could no longer bear to work with her? Turtlenecks, pencil skirts, and properly tailored business suits. She quickly found herself banned from such attire, which leaves me wondering what they expected her to wear. According to her lawsuit, she was even told she couldn’t wear simple high heels because “this purportedly drew attention to her body in a manner that was upsetting to her easily distracted male managers" (NY Post). When she tried to argue that she was dressing appropriately and professionally, just like her other female colleagues, some of whom dressed far more provocatively, she was told their overall unattractiveness made it a non-issue.
How is it possible that this situation even happened? Now an attractive woman has to worry about her job being in jeopardy because her male counterparts can’t keep themselves from ogling her? It seems to me that the problem isn’t the women. A woman should not have to compensate for being beautiful, nor should she have to worry about it being an issue professionally. Not every beautiful woman wants to be a model, and the ones who aren’t shouldn’t be penalized for choosing another career. All a company can ask is that a woman, no matter what she looks like, dress professionally, and Ms. Lorenzana did. To ban turtlenecks and pencil skirts from one employee is appalling; the clothing choices are completely innocent and cover up more skin than most other outfit choices, yet natural curves cause them to be an issue. Women can’t go to work in sweats or baggy clothes just because men can’t be decent and it’s unfair to single out someone attractive and eventually fire them for their looks. It’s unfounded and Citigroup should be embarrassed, yet they still haven’t taken responsibility or apologized, and they stand behind their decision.
Related Articles
Woman Fired From Citigroup For Being Too Hot, NY Post
- Erin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
After reading more about
After reading more about this case I feel like it may be a publicity stunt. There is a chance that she just wasn't performing as well as she needed to and she thought she could make a lawsuit out of her being let go by saying she was fired for being "too hot". Does that honestly seem like a legitimate reason for firing someone? You would think if she was that attractive, people would want her around just for the fun of socializing with someone of "pure beauty".
Also this statement that was posted in the NY Daily news- "And Tuckner says that his curvaceous client is not afraid to sue her new employer if they decide to can her. 'If they fire her, absolutely,' Tuckner said." seems quite ridiculous. No one is going to want to hire this woman if she goes around giving the assumption that she will sue any employer if she gets fired for any reason.
It is possible Lorenzana is telling the truth and was actually fired for being too attractive, but it seems to me like she's making herself a martyr for a somewhat superfluous cause.
I think that's the point -
I think that's the point - it's not a legitimate reason for firing someone. But I don't think that means it's an unlikely reason for them firing her. The fact is in some professions being attractive really is a detriment, it's considered unprofessional or unbusiness like to be "sexual." A friend of mine is in law school and got yelled at for having her bangs down because it was "too sexual". women in politics have a history of dressing unflatteringly in order to appear more masculin and businesslike in order to be taken seriously. The idea that women should look less like women in order to be more business-like is in no way unprescidented. The work environment is still largely a boys club - in her profession especially - but overall women still get paid less than men for doing the exact same job, that has nothing to do with the fact that they don't perform as well, it has to do with the fact that we are women. It's true we might never know the actual reason for her being fired - what we do know is that she filed an HR complaint (she could not contractually file any sort of complaint outside of Citibank) about harassment from her bosses and requested a transfer, which was granted - shortly after the transfer she was fired. I don't think the idea that she was fired over the incident is too far fetched.