Debrahlee Lorenzana, a thirty-three-year-old single mom and former banker for Citibank, sued her former employers on the grounds that she was unjustly fired. Though Citibank stated that they were dissatisfied with Lorenzana’s performance on the job, Lorenzana maintained that she was fired on the basis of her physical beauty being a distraction to her coworkers. Lorenzana reports being banned from wearing certain types of clothes- turtlenecks, pencil skirts, three-inch heels, or form-fitting suits- even as her bosses made no such restrictions on other female employees. Lorenzana says she was told her ultra-feminine, curvy body type made her exceptionally distracting in the office and that her appearance justified the special treatment. Citibank has refused to comment on the issue, and the case will be settled by an arbitrator instead of a judge due to stipulations outlined in Lorenzana’s contract with Citibank.

Research done at the University of Colorado Denver supports Lorenzana’s claims; studies show the way a woman looks determines whether she will see success in a specific field of work. For example, women who appear more feminine are more apt to succeed in traditionally female jobs, such as that of a secretary. On the other hand, traditionally feminine women who attempt to work in job fields that are dominated by men face difficulty.

The type of discrimination Lorenzana faced- appearance-based discrimination- has been a topic of discussion for several decades. According to a study done by researchers Kenneth Dion, Ellen Berscheid, and Elaine Walster at the University of Minnesota in 1972, humans are more likely to associate positive personality traits with people who are physically attractive. The study, which asked Minnesota undergraduate students to pair varying personality traits with faces they presumed to possess those traits, also found that people have a tendency to associate negative personality traits with faces that are not physically attractive. Researchers consider this study proof of the “beauty is good” stereotype. Fifty-five years prior to the study done in Minnesota, Edward Thorndike coined “the halo effect.”In accordance with the findings of Dion, Berscheid, and Walster, Thorndike determined that the human tendency to appraise others was not without bias. Using police officers and their subordinates as an example, Thorndike suggested that people tend to appraise a person’s collective traits based on one, singular trait. Thorndike’s findings confirmed that first impressions dictate how a person, or an object or service, is valued. Therefore, should a boss find a subordinate’s appearance to be preferable, he or she could mistakenly consider all subordinate’s traits to be positive. The contrasting “horns effect” could ensure that employers develop a steady distaste for an employee that doesn’t look appealing.

Though stereotyping based on beauty is nearly impossible to relegate based on the subconscious psychological roots of “beauty is good” model, the propagation of discrimination based on appearance can be stopped. Identifying and resisting discrimination is the first step in making sure the issue remains at the forefront of American consciousness, so cases of discrimination can be addressed and amended.