Gotta say, she is pretty hot
 

(partial)
Debrahlee Lorenzana (PICTURES) Fired for Being Too Sexy? - Crimesider - CBS News
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//20...zana_(2)_1.jpg
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//20...zana_(1)_1.jpg
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//20...nzana_(11).jpg

(Apparently the guy taking the photos thought so, too--there's like thirty of them)

I don't know if I buy her story. Citibank is not a mom-and-pop operation; their people are well versed in what constitutes sexual harassment and discrimination. She'll be a guest on Howard Stern in a month, and in Playboy within six months.

I vote hot.

Just because they wrote the book on sexual harassment and discrimination doesn't mean that they will follow it. Bigger the company, bigger the crack it can be shoved down into.

I say reality tv show is in the works already. 6-8 months for advertising and the show will be on Fox.

I say it's going to be call...

"Teller Talks"
"Teller Booth Confessionals"
"Banging with the Benjamins"
"Hot Money Transactions".

I'd hit hire that her.

A coworker of mine is (secretly, but we're good friends) planning on getting another job somewhere else in the next 3-6 months. She's good at what she does, but (unlike many candidates for this type of position) doesn't have a college degree.

Last month she got enormous fake tits. Like DD at least.

I feel like these two facts are related to one another, and also to this article, somehow.

Citibank isn't justified in punishing this woman for the inappropriate behaviors of others.

I'm surprised that "new customers" weren't knocking down the doors. "Citibank" could get its heads examined, but I'm sure there is more to this story. Did she say "No" at the wrong time, or "Yes" too often, or what?

I'd put my deposit in her vault.

Maybe they asked for a head exam and she turned down the wrong bank manager.

What's wrong with having eye candy even if you can't taste what is at the center of the tootsie pop? I'd rather look at that than 80 year old grandma or any dude.

*****

Sweet, bank teller sex euphemisms.

I'd love to take a look at her fixed assets. I'd love to roll over her premiums. I know I wouldn't be subject to early withdrawal with her. Look at her dude, I audit be in that.

Also, something about a spank bank.

Tres hot. Excellent snoobs.



She gave me a growth spike in my interest rate.

I'll bank with her if she offers rollover....

She puts the "ass" in financial resource assessment.

She has amazing high-yield packages.

She gives me economic stimulation.

I hear she's quite a dab hand at leveraging a guy's principal investment....

Um....

I'd fuck her.
Money.

I told her I wanted to see some nice assets; she asked me if I was into bonds....

It wasn't long before we got into back-end loads.

you got a belly laugh out of me on this one :thumbsup:

Hot. In every way.

That is one hot mommy. I'd definitely want to keep that around, even if only for some eye-candy to brighten up my day.

I'm a little disturbed that this conversation has turned into little more than "yeah, she's hot." (Which, yeah, she is.) I guess I can understand why - in the absence of any more information, it's just a "she said/they said" case with some photos of a very attractive woman.

But shouldn't this bring up some interesting questions? I'm tempted initially to tell her to get over herself...poor hot chick who thinks everyone's got it in for her. :rolleyes: But what if her side of the story is true?

Should someone who's curvy be reprimanded for "dressing sexily" when frankly, she's just kind of sexy and whatever she wears is going to make her look good? Or does she have some responsibility to recognize that her assets might need to be covered up a bit more? Is something that might be appropriate on someone less well-endowed still appropriate on a curvier woman? Does she need to be cognizant of what's distracting to others, or does she have a right to wear what she damn well pleases? Would we even be having this conversation if it was a good-looking man instead who wore tight pants?

That's the problem, it is a he said/she said case. Sexual Harassment and Discrimination are the issues surrounding this case, which I think everyone knows it wrong. If she did had to put up with unwanted comments because she was a hot mama, that's not appropriate (especially for a bank) or needed. Could this have happened? Yes. Did it? Who knows. That's what the court system is for, providing judgment based on evidence.

Til then, it's a he said, she said.

As expected, the obvious double-standard inverse scenario doesn't seem to work. I think it's because it seems this bank thinks that men, generally, cannot be trusted around women they deem uncommonly attractive---to the extent that instead of addressing specific men and their behaviour they go to the source, to one person. I think their move reflects more negatively on men than it does women.

She WOULD be a distraction but it's BS that they fired her for it. The menz just need to have some self control.

Yeah, she's hot, but she might also be full of shit, and using her looks to get paid. Let's hope justice is blind, so the truth will prevail.

Now, if she wants some side work, I've got some chores she could handle.

I find reports like this incredibly frustrating because while there may be some issues worth exploring (employee rights, workplace culture etc...) the story is nothing more than a springboard for gossip and an excuse to publish photos of an attractive woman.

TThe core story is a private interaction between employer and employee and because none of us work at that office, we can only speculate. If this story was anything other than gossip we'd get to read job performance evaluations, HR documents and so on.

But we have none of that because it is all confidential and never will because she will likely settle under a confidential agreement.

There's room for gossip in the media but I just hate when it's disguised as news.

So here's some boobies and on page 3, please check out what celebrities are tweeting about the story.

Man, I want her clothes. I would look AWESOME dressed like that. I especially want that dress in the first picture, and the skirt in the last. They're very nice clothes, but they are conservative, and certainly appropriate for an office. However, I wonder if the clothes in the picture honestly depict what she wore every day.

I'll be interested to see what happens in the case. Given that it's in private arbitration, we may never really know the truth.

My local radio station was talking about this--here's the picture they posted:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l29/banker.jpg

Attractive? Yes. Appropriate for work? No way.


Hmmm...according to the Village Voice, she was fired LAST summer. Why is it making the news now?

Yeah, that is definitely not appropriate for an office. This is why I wonder what she actually wore to work.

...because she's a current-standards highly fuckable piece of meat that's perfect to generate enough lowbrow controversy on the idiot box.

"Did she dress too sexy? Who gives a shit? She's hot. If she was a mediocre-lookin' housewife, we'd be all for more conservative threads."

...

And we've all seen enough TeeVee to know that if you want productivity in an office, you avoid hiring young attractive women as admin assistants.

You hire tough old bags with iron tongues. Or women that talk like John Cusack's sister in Grosse Point Blank.

This is what frustrates me about stories like this: Questions, questions, questions...

The story itself is a dead end of confidentiality and yet the coverage is viral.

:lol:Me too.:thumbsup:

She's hot enough to be a TV lawyer.

Seriously, all the young, ambitious female lawyers on TV are 8's or better. I've been in court a few times; I've never seen a lawyer that looks like this--
http://alanadelagarza.net/images/ala...253-alana7.jpg

:thumbsup:

yup. this has been rendered a non-story (if it ever even was one) by focusing entirely on what she was wearing, and leaving out all the important details surrounding her termination such as her numbers vs/ the average numbers in her workgroup and what was expected, any of the specific grievances she claimed, any quote from anyone involved, etc. It could be an interesting story rather than an excuse to put a pretty woman online, but the lack of any relevant details kills the whole thing.

and for the record, her clothes look fine. women don't have to wear burkas to work just because the office guys have no self-control or manners.

that being said, I agree and 2nd Baraka's comment, since there's not much else to talk about here without any of the pertinent information.

let's see....

i'd love to investigate her residuals.....?
I'd put my hard currency in her hedge fund......?
I'd lick her assets........?


I'd stick my tongue in her ass.............?

I don't particularly care how attractive she is. If her side of the story is true, Citibank screwed up and she's entitled to at least getting her job back.
I have a pair of dark gray slacks that I look pretty damned good in if I may say so myself. I've gotten compliments on them before from women, some appropriate (nice pants), some less so (those pants would look great on my bedroom floor). Of course there's not been thousands of years of institutionalized sexism against my particular gender, especially including things like rape, so I don't find myself getting offended by it. I understand that, due to the last few millennia, women have good reason to be concerned about inappropriate and overtly sexual behavior as it could signify real danger. In this case, it's a perfectly understandable difference in attitude between genders.

And no, I won't post a picture.

Well, there's two sides to every story, and Citibank cant go around giving there's on TV and Radio

If she has an outstanding case against them, I would have thought that seeking publicity like this would massively compromise the woman's position

If she was sacked because other people couldnt behave professionally of course thats unfair and should not be tolerated... but it doesnt really sound right. I think people ought wait for the employment tribunal to make its judgment.

I think her clothes are more than a bit on the tight side. My figure is a lot like hers, except I'm a little less "thick" in the thighs and butt. I would NEVER wear anything tightly gathered or tailored at the waist to work.:no: I wear tops that drape over my breasts rather than tightly clinging to every contour. In a professional (especially public) workplace, the "torpedo tits" look would be very distracting, and from a woman's point of view can't be anything but intentionally provocative.
She apparently doesn't realize that when you're well endowed (or in her case, I suspect, well modified):rolleyes: you don't need to force the issue so much. Men naturally like breasts, and will notice them even when one dresses modestly. Trust me, Debrahlee, this is true.
I don't know the actions of the men she worked with, but I'll just bet that she used up the natural good will from the other women pretty quickly. If they felt like she was "rubbing their noses" in their (comparative) ordinariness they would turn quickly hostile. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.:mad: Unless it would be the fury of several women scorned by one of their own.

Lindy

Did you just blame Debrahlee for the discrimination because her clothes are tighter than you think is appropriate for you to wear to work?

The alleged discrimination remains to be proven, and is not the point anyway. The publicity grab has worked out very well. The lawsuit is the product of an attentionwhore meeting a good publicity agent and a contingency fee lawyer.

Lindy

Only in America this would happen

Here are my comments, in order of importance:

1) Fuglystick did a piss poor job of selecting photos that adequately display the hotness of this woman. Consider this your reprimand. I expect your performance to improve or you will be transferred!
2) She was basically reprimanded by management for "unprofessional attire." This is a legitimate request from any management, and an attire clause is very common in employee handbooks. However, it is a delicate matter which should be addressed in a closed door meeting with a female member of HR present. It sounds to me like her managers screwed up in addressing the issue and opened themselves up to trouble.
3) This lawsuit will cost significantly less than the sexual harrassment lawsuit they would have invariably received, had they kept her employeed. In the end, Citibank probably made the most cost effective alternative, even if they stumbled into through sheer, dumb luck.
4) She's about to get paid for being hot. I'd imagine that's not the first dollar she's made by being hot.

I have three trains of thought on the issue that I'll sum up quickly while I still have the bloodflow necessary to articulate the first two:

1. I'm zealously against blaming the victim and prejudicial behavior of any kind, and I'm (in)famous in my local area for calling people on all kinds of bullshit. In the pictures in the first article she's dressed conservative enough that my "Woah, Hot Frum Girl" sensor got tripped on a few pictures.

2. That being said, this is a huge their word against hers case and for all we know she could've been showing up dressed like she was auditioning for that playboy photoshoot she's got lined up now.

3. What month/year is she in playboy?

And remember, substantial penalties for early withdraw...

Wow.

Is she too hot to work in a bank? No.
Is she as hot as she thinks she is? No.
Is this all a publicity stunt to guarantee her 15 minutes of fame and a VH1 reality show? Yes. She may even become the new darling of the tea bag party. No - scratch that - she's on the wrong side of a major corporation. That makes her a commie slut.

Hottie Banker's Boob Implant Video: 'I Want to Be Sex on a Stick'

I don't know about you, but this makes me a whole lot less sympathetic.