Hot for banker

A news story is making all the girly blogs upset today because a very attractive female business banker was fired from a job at Citibank, allegedly because her looks, clothing and sexuality were distracting in the workplace. The woman in question, Debrahlee Lorenzana, is obviously suing. If everything said and documented is to be true (which I always give people the benefit of the doubt until I see inconsistencies), then Lorenzana obviously has a case and was wrongly treated.

The choices she is making now, however, are ruining my impression of her. In a photo shoot for The Village Voice, Lorenzana is dressed in her "business attire" including an extremely low-cut beige satin blouse and a white skin-tight bandagelike dress. Her posing is more Maxim than Fortune, and her facial expressions are way too "come hither" to be seen as professional. These are in sharp contrast to photos directed by her lawyer (also pictured in the Voice article) where she looks professional, polished, and attractive in a black pantsuit. It seems that now that major press is involved, Lorenzana may be capitalizing in the wrong way. She is also all too quick to elaborate on her Latin heritage, poverty-stricken upbringing, and financial troubles after the firing. Lorenzana then makes the mistake of noting her 5 closets full of Hermes and Louis Vuitton outfits. If you're going for the sympathy card, don't mention the LVs.

Something about the article also bothers me in terms of consistency. In the second paragraph of the article it claims that her bosses cited work performance as the reason for termination, but on the third page it reads that her female manager at a new branch mentioned clothing complaints and not work performance during the firing. This may be a journalistic error, but clouds my judgment of the case none the less.

It all seems a little exaggerated and put-on for me. I just know I've never done my banking with so many "extras" on display as are being depicted in Lorenzana's pictures...