There’s a story over at Business Insider about a woman who claims that she was fired from a job at Citibank because she was “too hot.” See, Woman Says Citibank Fired Her Because She Was Too Hot. Debrahlee Lorenzana contends that she was fired because her managers could not handle her steamy looks; Citibank contends that’s not the reason she was dismissed.
Here’s her side of the story, as it appeared in the Village Voice and Business Insider:
“Where I’m from,” she told the Village Voice, “women dress up—like put on makeup and do their nails—to go to the supermarket… I was raised very Latin. We’re feminine. A woman in Puerto Rico takes care of herself.”
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,” she says.
[Her two male] managers gave her a list of clothing items she would not be allowed to wear: turtlenecks, pencil skirts, and fitted suits. And three-inch heels.From the Village Voice:
“As a result of her tall stature, coupled with her curvaceous figure,” her suit says, Lorenzana was told “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.”
Citibank contends that she was fired for other, as yet undisclosed, reasons.
In one way, the question I used as the title of this post (“Can a Private Business Fire a Woman Because She Was Allegedly ‘Too Hot?’ “) is a trick question — if they described her that way, or other ways like it, in email or otherwise, Citibank has just run into a buzz saw. That’s her term, though, as far as I know. I don’t know that Citibank managers described her that way.
Private businesses can certainly impose non-discriminatory dress codes, and if that’s what happened here, then I think the plaintiff’s case is questionable. I also find some of the comments attributed to her attorney truly odd and unprofessional (“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!”)
Also odd, and a bit suspicious to my mind, is the plaintiff’s attorney’s recommendation that “she should come to his place (his office) for a photo shoot, because she should have pictures of herself in more conservative clothing to use at her court case … and then (presumably) told her it was OK to take and let the [Village] Voice print the rest of the photos they have of her on their site.”
Those other photos are available at the Village Voice website.
While her story is attention-grabbing, I’m not persuaded by anything that she’s said publicly — just the opposite in fact. There are many women who are unfortunate victims of discrimination; I’m skeptical about this case, though. A judge and jury will have to wade through these claims. (One other note, about the case: the Business Insider notes that Citibank’s had a run of discrimination lawsuits lately.)
Apart from this case, I believe that private business should be able to enforce dress codes, in a way government clearly cannot. The solution for employees who don’t want to work with a restrictive dress code is to find work elsewhere. If too many companies are restrictive, the private labor market will produce a solution. Business that are too restrictive will lose otherwise capable and skilled employees to those with more liberal dress codes. Those companies with more generous codes will thereby prosper.
For those wondering, here’s one of the more conservative photo of Lorenzana:
