Here you go ... the rest of the evidence.
Posted on 06/02/2010 5:09:25 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
Extract: Debrahlee Lorenzana is filing a lawsuit against Citibank because they fired her, she says, for the strangest reason: she's too hot.
....Her bosses told her that "as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear," she says
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
How’s that?
Here you go ... the rest of the evidence.
Clearly there was WAY more going on in that office than what they are telling.
Absolutely gorgeous, but a bad case of scoliosis.
I’d have given her a huge raise, and depending what she did with it, maybe some more money too.
:)!
A christian woman should dress moderately and appropriately.She knows exactly what she’s doing
I disagree, she is on the verge of smoldering. But I suppose to each his own.
Well, she will get no sympathy from a female juror, lol... women are not receptive to other women tooting their own horns. She is a pretty young woman who no doubt wore form fitting clothing, and spiked heels all to her own detriment in the business world. I am sure she was warned numerous times, but seems to have considered it her Puerto Rican birthright to dress like she is going to a party when, in fact she was going to work- in a bank no less, where I think conservative attire is demanded. Maybe she will get on a reality tv show. lol
According to the story, she was dressing exactly as co-workers, not in a provacative manner. The bank even told her not to wear fitted business suits.
Ya gotta love her lawyer: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-01/news/is-this-woman-too-hot-to-work-in-a-bank/1
“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!”
Citibank is entirely wrong on this. They should have an affirmative action program for hot women. It would improve morale. };>)
I don’t see the problem. Just employ the Hillary Clinton wardrobe and watch all those radar stations stand down.
Ping to babe!
I’ve done that is my mind for 35 years at work without a problem or the need for a lawyer.
I done that is my mind for 35 years at work without a problem or the need for a lawyer.
The employer should have known not to give that as a reason, even if it was why they canned her.
PS I confess to total ignorance, and probably idiocy as well. what does “guilty” and “not guilty” mean in this context? I see it frequently but don’t know the details. thanks in advance to anyone who pulls me out of the depths of ignorance.
It all comes from female teachers having sex with their students.
If she’s hot.. then she’s not guilty. For you really can’t convict a hot chick. Cause the student must have really liked it.
If she’s ugly.. then there’s a chance the student probably didn’t like it or was coerced in some way. So.. we say she is guilty.
Now it has just turned into.. hot chicks are not guilty. While the uggers are guilty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.