Blind! Drunk! Promo!

Posted in Blind Drunk Justice on September 1st, 2010 by bl1y

I love the smell of collection calls in the morning.

Tags: , ,

Someone Call the Hague

Posted in Uncategorized on June 28th, 2010 by bl1y

Deborahlee Lorenzana is back in the spotlight once again, delivering a tearful explanation of why she was fired from Citibank.  Or, rather, attempting to explain why she was fired:

I was a target to them.

I suppose she means she was targeted by them, but when you target someone, you have something in mind to do to them.  Lorenzana tries to link this targeting to a failure of Citibank to train her on the job.  But, you generally don’t hire people with the intent to stifle their careers and then fire them.  If her managers were really spending so much time leering at her “tits on a stick” appearance, you’d think she’s get more training to make sure she was able to stay at the company.

Over at AboveTheLaw, Elie Mystal pointed out that admitting she was not trained to do her job could ultimately hurt Lorenzana.  She has essentially handed Citibank a de jure reason for her termination, she didn’t know what she was doing.  She could then argue that discrimination played into the lack of training, but it makes the case a bit harder.

Oh, and Gloria Allred, Lorenzana’s new representation, is calling for a human rights investigation.

For real.

Not making that up.

Human. Rights. Investigation.

Tags: , ,

Too Hot To Bank?

Posted in Uncategorized on June 3rd, 2010 by bl1y

Debrahlee Lorenzana is suing CitiBank after being terminated.  She believes she was discriminated against for being too smoking hot.  While working as a business banker, her manager made several remarks about her clothing being inappropriate, and forbid her from wearing turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted suits, or high heels.  But, when she tried to play down her appearance by getting less dolled up, management criticized her for not wearing makeup and coming to work without her hair straightened.

Lorzenayayayana eventually complained to upper management and got a transfer to another branch.  However, she was employed as a telemarketer there as that branch did not need another business banker.  She complained about being in the wrong position, and was eventually terminated by her new, female, supervisor.

Having been absent the day they taught law at law school, I really have no idea what it would take to successfully claim you were fired for being too hot.  Surely employers have the right to keep a little modesty in their offices.  But what if an employee would look hot even in a potato sack?

Some of the statements she’s made about working at Citi might end up hurting her case:

I don’t have the money to buy a new wardrobe.  I shop where everyone else shops—at Zara!

A quick look at the Zara women’s Woman department shows that they don’t carry suits.  Neither the catalogue nor the lookbook show that the clothes there would be appropriate for a professional office.  While Lorenzana may feel that she was dressed up, maybe she needed a lesson in the difference between dressy casual and business casual.

And while it might be hard to buy a new wardrobe while making $70,000 in New York City (look! a banker making less than a lawyer! haha!), her claim of sartorial hardship doesn’t jive with her “five closets full of Burberry, Hermès, Louis Vuitton, and Roberto Cavalli.”

Also, I’m not really sure how this would make it in at trial, but it’s probably not a good idea to refer to your “Spic pride” when you’re filing a discrimination suit.

[Hat tip to "LucasJackson" over at The Idiot Board who posted the story this morning.  Don't want the folks at ATL thinking I'm ripping them off.  They posted the story shortly before I did, while I was still reading the article.  Yeah...reading it.  Try it.  Then you won't embarrass yourself by suggesting the parties "get an arbitration room already" when the end of the article discusses why arbitration would be a bad idea for the plaintiff.]

Tags: , , ,