I wasn't really planning on posting about this story because I didn't consider it newsworthy, but many websites and blogs are acting like there's actually something to this silly story. I guess some people will fall for any ridiculous story.
A bank employee in New York named Debrahlee Lorenzana says her employer fired her because she was just too "hot". The way Ms. Lorenzana tells it, the bank (Citibank) told her she was just too beautiful and was distracting the other employees because of it. She says they told her they had to fire her so the other employees could get their work done. She has now hired an attorney and wants to sue the bank.
The picture above is of Ms. Lorenzana. She's attractive enough, but I'm having a hard time believing the other employees couldn't get their work done because of her "hotness". In addition, the story was released to the press by her and her attorney and any media outlet that wants them is given a portfolio of sexy pictures of Ms. Lorenzana.
For their part, Citibank is denying the rather ridiculous charge. They say her termination had nothing to do with her looks or the clothing she wore. They say the firing was "solely performance-based". Anyone who has read this blog for long will know that I am no fan of banks -- especially giant banks like Citibank. However, I think it's the bank that's telling the truth on this one.
This has more of the earmarks of a publicity stunt than a real wrongful termination suit. I think Lorenzana is trying to use this to become a "d-list" celebrity (and maybe get a reality show or something like that). It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that she was a frustrated actress, model, etc., and just needed some publicity to kick-start some kind of career.
So let's put this phony story where it belongs -- in the trashcan.
Indeed. I posted about this one with basically the same conclusion -- that her firing was most likely because of her poor English skills (on display on YouTube in interviews with her) and her bad attitude once she was transferred to a position which was not customer-facing. There are other details which tend to support your conclusion too -- the fact that, for example, this case is going to arbitration, and thus the usual reason for a PR blitz (to gain funding for lawyers, to prejudice jury pool, etc.) does not apply, since arbitration proceedings are typically fairly inexpensive by lawsuit standards and arbiters are not swayed by PR blitz tactics (indeed, they make arbiters LESS likely to rule in your favor).
ReplyDeleteThere's no "there" there, in other words, and I'm baffled that the very same people who laugh at Orly Taitz for alleging in lawsuits that Obama is a secret Kenyan are taking the fact that this woman is making these allegations in an arbitration suit to mean that the allegations are true. So let's get this straight. Orly's allegations are false, while this lady's allegations are true -- even though both have exactly the same amount of evidence to back them up? Get real!
-Badtux the Legal Penguin
Thanks for the support BT. This struck me from the beginning as a publicity stunt.
ReplyDelete