Julian Assange's Lawyers Decry Leak of Assange's Information
Village Voice also helpfully provides a slide show of Lorenzana photos for judicial study purposes and a video interview is below. If Lorenzana can prove that she was fired for her looks it will force the court to decide whether an employee can be fired for being too hot. Maybe, once the Supreme Court finishes ruling on the speech and privacy issues of the Snyder v. Phelps case, we'll get lucky and the justices will turn their attention to the potentially landmark case of Citibank v. Hotness.This is the way Debbie Lorenzana tells it: Her bosses told her they couldn't concentrate on their work because her appearance was too distracting. They ordered her to stop wearing turtlenecks. She was also forbidden to wear pencil skirts, three-inch heels, or fitted business suits. Lorenzana, a 33-year-old single mom, pointed out female colleagues whose clothing was far more revealing than hers: "They said their body shapes were different from mine, and I drew too much attention," she says.
As Lorenzana's lawsuit puts it, her bosses told her that "as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at mfisher at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
| Related Articles | More by Max Fisher | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have a story we missed? A link we have to click? A sharp opinion about the news? Instead of waiting for us to post it, tell us on the Open Wire.
Submit your news and ideas | See all reader posts
User Comments
Please type your comment and click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be prompted to log in or register