Terminated: When “Hot” Becomes “Too Hot”

The world is indeed a strange place. We’ve heard about Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a case in which a female accountant claimed she was discriminated against for failing to conform to gender stereotyping. namely for not being “feminine enough”. In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Price Waterhouse discriminated against Hopkins for failing to conform to expectations of how women should behave. But Debrahlee Lorenzana is on the opposite side of this issue, claiming that she was terminated from her position with Citibank for being too feminine and “too hot”.

Ms. Lorenzana claims that her supevisors told her they couldn’t concentrate on their work because her appearance was too distracting. She alleges that she was forbidden to wear turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted business suits, and classic high-heeled business shoes. As summarized in her lawsuit, Ms. Lorenzana was told that “as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly ‘too distracting’ for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear.”

Ms. Lorenzana’s attorney, Jack Tuckner, was quoted in a Village Voice article : “It’s like saying 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!”

Ms. Lorenzana is claiming sexual harassment and retailation. According to the terms of her employment with Citibank, the case will be arbitrated. Under New York City’s Human Rights Law, Ms. Lorenzana will need to demonstrate that “it’s more likely than not” that Citibank created a discriminatory and hostile work environment based on her gender, that she was treated differently because of her gender, and that she was terminated in close proximity to her complaints of being treated differently. Citibank also has a burden of proof; it must demonstrate that it did not create a hostile work environment based on her gender and that she was fired for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

This case is quite different from the majority of sexual harassment cases. Typically, the claim is that a woman was pressured into looking more attractive. In Ms. Lorenzana’s case, it’s the exact opposite.