The case of the beautiful woman, Debrahlee Lorenzana, who claimed that one of the country's biggest banks, Citigroup, fired her for being too attractive, has a new bump or two: It appears that Lorenzana bought at least some of her assets.
According to the New York Daily News, the lovely Latina underwent a series of cosmetic surgery procedures, including four breast augmentation surgeries, in order achieve a Salma Hayek-type figure.
In 2003, Lorenzana took part in a Discovery Channel documentary "Plastic Surgery New York Style." The single mother is heard exclaiming, "I love plastic surgery" and asking her surgeon for "huge double Ds."
Lorenzana said that in addition to breast augmentation, she'd also had a tummy tuck and liposuction. Her goal, she said, was to look "a little bit more attractive, like in between Pamela Anderson and Carmen Electra."
The documentary also shows Lorenzana at a grocery store, holding papayas and melons against her chest, apparently trying to demonstrate how she expected to look following another breast augmentation surgery.
Lorenzana's attorney remains unfazed in light of the story's new curves.
"Whatever her assets are, they don't have a right to comment on them or objectify her," said lawyer Jack Tuckner.
In the lawsuit, Lorenzana, who worked at a Citibank branch in New York, alleges not only that she was fired for her good looks, but 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.
Citi has said the lawsuit is "without merit," that it would mount a "vigorous" defense and that Citi "is committed to fostering a culture of inclusion and providing a respectful environment in the workplace."
Buried beneath the attention-grabbing allegations, however, is a legal detail that means a lot for many workers, not just the attractive ones: Thanks to something known as a mandatory arbitration clause, Lorenzana likely will not have her day in court.
When she first began work at Citi in September 2008, the employment documents she signed included one stipulating that any employment disputes be resolved through arbitration, not in court.
Companies have increasingly begun mandating 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.
In arbitration, as in court hearings, witnesses still make depositions and evidence is still presented by both sides, but the process is less formal than a trial and is held in a private setting. That means, some legal experts say, that it can be concluded more quickly and cheaply than a trial.
Some arbitration advocates argue that, by virtue of their experience, arbitrators are more likely to issue fairer, more just decisions than juries.
But Tuckner, Lorenzana's lawyer said he and his client would have preferred a jury trial. For one thing, he said, arbitrators -- sometimes former judges or lawyers -- may be more jaded and conservative than a jury. He also questioned whether arbitrators, who often are paid by the companies requiring arbitration, are ever truly impartial.