Yeah. I don't know. Village Voice:

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."

I actually had to chew on this article for a couple of days to figure out what I really think the idea as a whole. I actually ended up consulting the smartest feminist I know on it. The nut of her answer:

So, yes, there is a well established history in gender in our culture for the claims she is making. Very much so. But, that's not the question here (or, at least, is shouldn't be the question ... unfortunately some morons out there still question this shit), the question is whether or not it's the case for her.

To which I say, she stole my answer:)

This woman's story is perfectly plausible. Now this plausibility is based on a few assumptions which I fully admit could be wrong in this case. Retail banks do (at least the ones here) have a tendancy to hire attractive women at a rate that seems disproportionate. However, in my experience, these attractive women are mainly occupying the 'pink' desks while managerial positions are most often occupied by men. Regardless of reasoning, additional considerations, in my experience this seems to be the case. This is not to say it's the same situation at this woman's bank.

In that environment, it is not difficult to perceive how some casual misogyny or more aggressive variants might exist. It really doesn't require a huge stretch to see potential for her story to stick.

Now, conversely, there's some things in the VV story which put up some red flags. I'll let you folks go have a read through and see what you can see, but suffice to say I usually find myself leaning in favor of the victim in cases like this. Here---not so sure.

----------finishing my thought----------

Alright. I think I have it. I struggled a bit to find the right way to articulate it here.

It's an issue of the portrayal.

She got set up with this VV piece, which spends as much time on the woman's taste in shoes as it does on story. In fact, it spends a lot of time talking about how attractive this woman is. I'm apparently not the only one who noticed.

Dwoskin closes in a similar vein, speculating that the case's arbitrator might "be too distracted by Lorenzana to focus on the evidence." Clearly she's trying to be light-hearted, but ogling Lorenzana in print the way her coworkers apparently did in life does a disservice to the seriousness of her discrimination claims.

Which is an understatement like saying that the a-bomb did 'quite a bit' of damage to Hiroshima.

Couple that with the photoshoot for the court case. Ya know, that's hard core client prep right there. In a case where the point is she's so hot that she got fired, take a bunch of pictures of her that show that she wasn't dress inappropriately like they say, she's just hot. PS: As an aside, I see this attorney's web site, and I think media whore on a quest to do Letterman. But I'll let you decide if I'm off base with it.

So maybe it's not that the story isn't right. It's just a bad picture being painted.