It’s perhaps not as tough as bing super ugly but Debrahlee Lorenzana claims the shape of her figure meant her clothes were purportedly ‘too distracting for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear and that she was ‘fired for being too attractive’.

Her bosses allegedly ordered her to stop wearing turtlenecks, pencil skirts, three-inch heels, or fitted business suits. Which leaves? Don’t worry – she didn’t go naked…

In preparation for the lawsuit, her lawyer Jack Tuckner had a professional photographer shoot her in various work outfits in his office near Wall Street to show that they were proper business attire – click here and judge for yourself; could you work with this lady without continually having to pour cold water on your head? Tuckner is confident they’ve got a case.

The lawyer told Villagevoice he believes the case is self-explanatory.

Villagevoice: ‘It’s like saying that we can’t think anymore because 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!’

More>

Despite all the legal excitement, because Ms Lorenzana was required to sign a mandatory-arbitration clause before she began her job at Citibank, the case will never end up in front of a jury or a judge. The result will be decided by an arbirtrator instead.

Citi issued a statement: “We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will defend against it vigorously. We respect the privacy of all of our employees and therefore cannot comment more specifically on this litigation, this former employee’s overall performance, or the reasons for her termination- which an arbitration panel must resolve. Citi is committed to fostering a culture of inclusion and providing a respectful environment in the workplace. We have a strong commitment to diversity and we do not condone, or tolerate, discrimination within our business for any reason.”