Debbie Lorenzana is suing Citigroup on the grounds that she was fired solely because her bosses thought she was too sexy. They allegedly told her that she was distracting the male employees and was directed to dress more conservatively than other female staff members.
The original Village Voice article explains her job, which was customer-focused, and she had previous sales positions in the insurance and financial services industries. So she's basically one of our own.
Now, it's often been observed that physical attractiveness is an asset in sales, and there are plenty of women (and men, too) who trade on their looks in order to build customer rapport more easily.
But is it possible to be TOO attractive for a sales job? Has Debrahlee gone too far? Remember, she claims she was only wearing the same outfits as other women in the firm were wearing... she just filled them out a little differently.
Here's a poll, but feel free to comment (keep it clean, please).
I have mixed feelings about this one.
On the one hand, any woman who is that attractive is going to get a lot of male attention and, frankly, can probably (and probably has) cruised along on her looks.
On the other hand, I think that it's unlikely she broke the "dress code" at Citibank, even though she was definitely dressing in a way that was intended to attract male attention. Her main liability appears to be that that she was more successful at this than her peers.
But all that aside, what's the big deal? Why should anyone care if she's "distracting" the men in the room as long as she's doing her job? Their challenge is to get their minds off her cleavage and get their own jobs done.
I say that as long as she's making her numbers, and she's not breaking any rules, she should have been allowed to dress as sexy as she wants.
Note: At 6:43 Eastern on 6/3, I changed the originally-posted photo to one showing Debbie dressed for work. If you're curious to see how she looks in more glamorous outfits, here's an entire gallery of photos.