Reply
Thu 20 Mar, 2008 07:21 am
Can a company, in the U.S. legally enforce a dress code where women can only wear skirt or dress, no pants, skorts, etc?
No, not where I work, just curious.
Chai, I'm just guessing, but I would think they could. If they can make men wear ties, they can make women wear dresses.
I guess it's an issue that's handled at the State level...
Quote:Sex Discrimination Claims.
Sex discrimination claims typically are not successful unless the dress policy has no basis in social customs, differentiates significantly between men and women, or imposes a greater burden on women. Thus, a policy that requires female managers to wear uniforms while male managers are allowed to wear "professional dress" may be discriminatory. However, dress requirements that reflect current social norms generally are upheld, even when they affect only one sex. For example, in a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998), the court upheld an employer's policy that required only male employees to cut their long hair.
Be aware, though, that at least one state, California, prohibits employers from implementing a dress code that does not allow women to wear pants in the workplace. According to Section 12947.5 of the California Government Code, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to prohibit an employee from wearing pants because of the sex of the employee. The California law does make exceptions so employees in certain occupations can be required to wear uniforms.
http://www.ppspublishers.com/articles/dress_code_policy.htm
I guess it's an issue that's handled at the State level...
Quote:Sex Discrimination Claims.
Sex discrimination claims typically are not successful unless the dress policy has no basis in social customs, differentiates significantly between men and women, or imposes a greater burden on women. Thus, a policy that requires female managers to wear uniforms while male managers are allowed to wear "professional dress" may be discriminatory. However, dress requirements that reflect current social norms generally are upheld, even when they affect only one sex. For example, in a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998), the court upheld an employer's policy that required only male employees to cut their long hair.
Be aware, though, that at least one state, California, prohibits employers from implementing a dress code that does not allow women to wear pants in the workplace. According to Section 12947.5 of the California Government Code, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to prohibit an employee from wearing pants because of the sex of the employee. The California law does make exceptions so employees in certain occupations can be required to wear uniforms.
http://www.ppspublishers.com/articles/dress_code_policy.htm
Both IBM and Disney had very strict dress codes in the 1980's ( I don't know what they are today). IBM had things like no colored pantyhose and Disney did not allow for drop style earrings. Many fast food places do not allow nose jewelry when on counter duty.
don't know about legalities, but in the 7+ years i've worked here, i know of only one instance when the company asked someone to go home and change what they wore to work... it was because M (my cubicle-mate at the time
) wore a low-cut top and mini-dress on the same day they'd invited a bunch of clients to the office...
I used to work at Chelseas street pub in... eh.. 1992?
Dress code-
white shirt, tan skirt
panty hose
black shoes.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Seeing someone with any sort of excess piercings would have a negative effect on me, and probably many other people. As far as I am concerned, that would not be good for business, and, after all, THAT is the bottom line!
blue hair has that effect on me
Interesting replies.
shewolf...since that was at a pub, that seemed to be sort of a uniform, the way everyone at Target wears red polos and khaki pants. Or circut city with their blue polos and khakis
heh....I remember this hysterical video drewdad? posted once. Someone put an ad in the paper asking anyone who wanted to, to show up at a particular place and time wearing khakis and blue polo.....then the "organizer" of this prank told everyone they were going to go into a circut city, and everyone was to scatter around, and just hang around at the ends of the aisles and stuff. They were not to tell anyone they worked there, but, if someone walked up to them and asked where something was, they could point out where to go...hey, just being helpful. Anyway, it was soooooo funny, the managers were freaking out, called the cops and everything. There were I think dozens of them, young, old, every type.
RP - yeah, there's a difference with being inappropriately dressed. That is totally allowed, sending someone home who is dressed for a night out at a club, unless of course they work in an environment, something artsy or fashion oriented or something, where their regs are more relaxed. Dress needs to be proper to the environment.
To me, the thing with requiring someone to wear dresses or skirts could put an undue hardship on an individual, or a large group as a whole.
The necktie business. My feelings are that for some business, it is necessary to create a professional atmosphere. Plus, a man can go out and buy a number of ties, not spend too much money, and be set for years. Also, women, if they chose, could wear a necktie with an outfit, and it wouldn't be considered inappropriate.....A man though, couldn't wear a dress or skirt. (I'm talking generalities.)
For a woman to have a large enough supply of skirts & dresses alone for work could easily be cost prohibitive.
A womans sexual orientation may make her extrememly uncomfortable wearing a skirt or dress, or regardless of her sexual orientation, she may be uncomforable in that sort of attire.
I used to wear dresses and skirts all the time. Used to. The last time I put on a dress is when I got married, 15 or so years ago. I frankly do not look good in dresses and skirts any longer.
Times change. In a few generations, piercings might be more acceptable, and ties may on the whole not be required....Over the decades I've seen that trend anyway.
The trend of dress for the work environment is going towards more individuality, not less.
On the other hand, I would have to wonder about a company who insisted one sex wear an item of clothing based solely on their gender. Look at all the talent they might be turning away because a female applicant says "I'll take my skills elsewhere, where I can where my totally appropriate business pants."
We have a dress code that does have differences between women and men - not that women have to wear dresses/skirts to that extreme. It is more around that fact that women need to have pantyhose on when wearing a dress/skirt. I guess they assume that men will not wear dresses. And other types of clothing wore pretty much by one sex vs the other.
When I practiced law I had to wear a dress or skirt, regardless of the weather. I recall when E___ was sent home because she was wearing a Ralph Lauren pantsuit that probably cost more than our boss's entire ensemble for that day. Why was she wearing a pantsuit? Because it had snowed about 10".
I'm glad those days are over. These days, for work, I don't dress up often. For job interviews, yes. For big meetings where they want everyone to look nice, I'll put on a skirt. But for everyday? Naaah, they'd have to be on crack to require that, as I find myself crawling under the desk to fix a cable or something about once a month or so.
Ask the lady from East Germany about the dress code.
who had rescued a conservative christian about marriage and the age difference.
Should I expose more?
Chai wrote: The necktie business. My feelings are that for some business, it is necessary to create a professional atmosphere. Plus, a man can go out and buy a number of ties, not spend too much money, and be set for years.
Have you looked at the prices on ties in the last 10 years? When you figure that the average guy who wears a suit to work every day would need at least 15 ties to go with varying suit colors and not end up wearing the same outfit (brown suit/brown pants/ivory shirt/tie combination) every Friday and then multiply that by $35/tie it starts getting a bit steep. Add on varying tie-tacks, etc... and you add another hundred bucks.
And they do wear out/fray/tear and go in and out of style just like any other clothing item. When I was wearing a suit daily, 6-8 months was about as long as a tie lasted (unless it was one I really hated and didn't wear very often...).
I don't think it's as cheap as you are portraying it here.
I guess I figure if you have a job were you are required to wear a suit, it's an investment to start off with let's say 6 ties @ 35 a pop, and had another 1 monthly, counting on wear and tear, fashion, etc.
In the not so distant past, when women were wearing pantyhose much more often, we considered it a routine expense, and they wear out a lot faster than ties.
The thing that gets me about wearing dresses/skirts seems to be this enforcement of "looking like a woman"
I guy can wear a tie, and not feel "They're trying to force me to look like a man" If you are, let's say, a man who feels internally like a woman, you could still pick a tie that fits in with that, by the color, design, etc.
I'm a woman, and I feel like a woman. I used to wear dresses/skirts a lot, because I wanted to. Now, for a number of reasons, I would feel uncomfortable wearing a dress or skirt.
Depending on the level of the formality/professionalism of the work environment you are in, a dress can look ridiculous if you don't also wear some type of heel....I don't wear heels, as a general rule, and if I do, they are with pants. Then there's the whole pantyhose issue. Also, dresses, even long ones, do change the way in which you have to move.
Finally, the cost.
Dresses/skirts are a helleva lot more expensive than ties. If they a business attire you pretty much can't wear them for casual, on your own time activites. Business pants can be dressed up or down much more easily.
In this respect, it seems to me as more sexist than wearing a tie. It, to me, kinda feels like an invasion of my privacy.
Once, at a job interview, long ago, I was asked if I was married, and had any intention of getting married in the near future. The interviewer actually said they wouldn't be concerned if the man was married, but they didn't think a married/attached woman would work out because they didn't feel her loyalty would be toward the job.
Being told I must wear a dress/skirt feels the same way.
Chai wrote: Finally, the cost.
Dresses/skirts are a helleva lot more expensive than ties.
That's a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. A tie is worn with the rest of the suit which has to be bought too. Guys who show up at work wearing only a tie usually go home quickly - unemployed.
Quote:Once, at a job interview, long ago, I was asked if I was married, and had any intention of getting married in the near future. The interviewer actually said they wouldn't be concerned if the man was married, but they didn't think a married/attached woman would work out because they didn't feel her loyalty would be toward the job.
That'd be grounds for a lawsuit nowadays!
Quote:Being told I must wear a dress/skirt feels the same way.
I can understand that. My only disagreement with you at all here is on the issue of cost. I don't see it as a factor either way. It's expensive for both sexes.
In Aust if a company requires a certain uniform the company MUST supply the uniform or compensate the staff member for purchasing. There is no legal way to enforce a certain dress code ie skirts or even colours without providing access.
A uniform allowance is sometimes provided. This ensures staff do not over order for personal use.
Many companies require certain types of clothing ie high visibility shirts. Safety clothing like steel cap boots and high vis shirts are tax deducible for many professions so workers in companies that dont
require these items are routinely wearing them.
Oh yeah, uniforms are different.
There's lots of places where the staff is required to wear a certain uniform.
I'm talking about being told you wear your own clothes, but must comply with a certain style of dressing that is sexist.
Chai wrote:Oh yeah, uniforms are different.
There's lots of places where the staff is required to wear a certain uniform.
I'm talking about being told you wear your own clothes, but must comply with a certain style of dressing that is sexist.
Cant happen here. By law. The sex discrimination commissioner would have em for breakfast.
dadpad wrote:In Aust if a company requires a certain uniform the company MUST supply the uniform or compensate the staff member for purchasing. There is no legal way to enforce a certain dress code ie skirts or even colours without providing access.
A uniform allowance is sometimes provided. This ensures staff do not over order for personal use.
This is largely the same in the U.S.. Uniform items that aren't commonly available in typical department stores are provided by the employer. But if a part of the uniform is, for example, "black pants" (which can be found in pretty much any store) the employer may opt not to provide those. That appears to be the same down under.
Quote:Many companies require certain types of clothing ie high visibility shirts. Safety clothing like steel cap boots and high vis shirts are tax deducible for many professions so workers in companies that dont
require these items are routinely wearing them.
Quote:
Professional clothing is tax deductible here too. The government has some rules about what is/isn't "professional clothing". Steel toed boots, for example, aren't usually tax deductible because they can be routinely worn outside of the job. A specialty shirt might be deductible. Things like hardhats are fully deductible.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace