She concedes when she was at the second Citi branch, after her transfer, that she was chided for inadequate performance. Later, she was released.
It sounds like she was fired because she wasn't doing the job very well and Citigroup is probably going to be able to demonstrate that.
Yet, it also seems clear, at the first branch, she was singled out and asked to dress or give a different appearance than was the norm for the company dress code and relative to the practice of her colleagues.
Is she suing for the right thing?
And, yeah, she's smokin' hot.
From her complaint:
"Shortly after the commencement of her employment, branch manager Craig Fisher and assistant branch manager Peter Claibourne began articulating inappropriate and sexist comments concerning plaintiff's clothing and appearance," her Manhattan court filing says.
She was told "she must refrain from wearing certain items of clothing, in particular, turtleneck tops, pencil skirts, fitted business suits, or other properly tailored clothing," the suit says.
"In blatantly discriminatory fashion, plaintiff was advised that as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear."
The sexy single mom pointed out to her bosses "that other female colleagues wore similar professional attire," and that some dressed far more provocatively, the filing says.
But her supervisors shot back that those women didn't have to worry about turning them on "as their general unattractiveness rendered moot their sartorial choices, unlike plaintiff," the papers say.
Lorenzana was also told that "as a result of her tall stature, coupled with her curvaceous figure, she should not wear classic high-heeled business shoes, as this purportedly drew attention to her body in a manner that was upsetting to her easily distracted male managers."
"She was punished because her male bosses couldn't handle their libidos," Lorenzana's lawyer, Jack Tuckner, said.
Is she suing for something she can win?
Cowperson
