Arbitration clause won't allow 'too hot' ex-employee to sue Citibank
The case of the 'too-hot-to-handle' Debrahlee Lorenzana, who was fired for 'being too sexy', has come to a grinding halt as she can't sue Citibank because of an arbitration clause in her company agreement.
In a lawsuit, Lorenzana, who worked at a Citibank branch in New York, also alleges that she wasn't allowed to wear clothing similar to that of her female co-workers because her figure made wearing such attire "too distracting" to her male colleagues.
Lorenzana employee agreement with Citibank mandates that employment disputes be resolved through arbitration. An alternative to litigation, arbitration allows for disputes to be decided by a third party, known as an arbitrator, instead of a court.
Witnesses and evidence will be presented, but in a less formal and private meeting. However, Lorenzana's lawyer, Jack Tuckner said that his client would rather go through a jury trial for two reasons - former judges or lawyers may be more conservative and may be in cahoots with the companies.
Jurors, he said, "come from all walks of life" and are therefore "better equipped at determining the facts" -- including what monetary damages, if any, should be awarded.
"A jury will act [more] with their heart and their emotions than an arbitrator ever will," he said. "You're far less likely to ever see a penny of punitive [damages] with an arbitrator," ABC News quoted him as saying.