Women in the Workplace: Is this woman “too hot” to be a banker?
05. Jun, 2010 
2 Comments
My work attire consists of grey cardigans, floral blouses and the occasional knee length skirt. On casual Fridays I like to be adventurous and wear jeans paired with an original (yet conservative) Urban Outfitters t-shirt.
No one will ever claim my clothing is risqué...being “too hot” is not option at my 9 to 5. But apparently there are sexy victims in the workplace. Pencil skirts are halting productivity and male employers have no choice but to fire the trolling sexy women….YES, FIRE THEM.
Sultry banker Debbie Lorenzana is the latest victim of workplace (dress code) sexism. Citibank claims she was fired due to poor work performance, however Lorenzana says her superiors repeatedly noted they “couldn’t concentrate” in her presence. Lorenzana’s appearance was a pretty hot and tempting office distraction. The 33-year-old single mom, was ordered to stop wearing turtlenecks, pencil skirts, three-inch heels, or fitted business suits. Apparently every item in her closet caused mayhem. And understandably so…the woman is stunning!
The Village Voice describes her as “J.Lo curves meets Jessica Simpson rack meets Audrey Hepburn elegance—a head-turning beauty.” I’m sure she could wear overalls and be breathtaking.
She’s now suing her former workplace, alleging that her bosses told her that “as a result of the shape of her figure, [her] clothes were purportedly ‘too distracting’ for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear.”
I’m rooting for Lorenzana and her sexy attire. Ogling men in suits should not prevail. If she dressed appropriately and her work performance was satisfactory she should still be a banker. No turtlenecks or pencil skirts about it.
Signed,
Globot
p.s. And those who object the sex kitten photos on the Village Voice -- I understand but don't care. Look through the whole slideshow and the examples of work clothes. I'm positive she wasn't prancing around the office in lingerie. Companies shouldn't restore to firing people because of their real (or imagined) sexual allure.
i half agree and half disagree with this while mess. looking through some of the photos, there were a few things that came to mind: #1 judging by the way she posed in pictures its obvious she’s VERY aware of her body and i would have a hard time believing she is completely innocent of CAUSING a distraction instead of simply BEING a distraction. #2 bankers move around. they have to reach for thing, bend over, not be a mannequin…some of those tops are at HIGH risk for wardrobe malfunction, and some of those skirts…i’d be afraid to burst a seam.
my gut instinct is “money hungry trollop looking to cash in on (blame) her looks: poor me, i’m too pretty” my second gut instinct is “dude, like they said, a FLOUR SACK would be provocative on her. get over it.”
i think the fine line for me is not simply the clothes, but how you wear the clothes…a cardigan or two, a little more fitting, a little less pouring and it would have been completely different.
just my two cents.
sherryrose