No matter what industry you work in, there is some form of a dress code. Where you work obviously determines the dress code, but employers can, and do, regulate what we look like at work. In a state like California, an "at-will" state, employees make the choice to adhere to a set of dress code regulations, or find another employer.
The question is when does a dress code go to far? When is an employer dictating to an employee dress code requirements versus appearance requirements? While many of us can agree that our employer does have the right to tell us what kind of dress is appropriate (i.e. at my current employer we are asked to wear all black; a tech firm, where there may be little to no client-facing, accepts jeans and t-shirts; an outside sales person may mimic the dress code of their clients by wearing a suit, etc) can they tell us if our "look" is right for the company? Take for example, the case against Abercrombie and Fitch (Gonzalez, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores); while the dress code there allows for associates to wear shorts, hoodies, t-shirts, flip-flops, or Converse shoes, the company was sued for seeking a certain look on the sales floor. As reported in the New York Times in 2003, "Abercrombie's 'classic American' look, pervasive in its stores and catalogs and on its Web site, is blond, blue-eyed and preppy. Abercrombie finds such workers and models by concentrating its hiring on certain colleges, fraternities and sororities." A lawsuit was filed by minority workers claiming they were discriminated against. The courts agreed and in 2004 the class action suit was settled for $50 million, less court and attorney fees.
When does a dress code go too far? For example at my current employer, there is a section of the dress code that speaks to make-up and nail polish standards for female employees. Make-up must be worn and tasteful; nail polish colors must be neutral or normally accepted colors and polish must be neat and clean and cannot be chipped or peeling. Also, there are many associates who remove piercings before work or cover tattoos to adhere to dress code standards, even though they had these items at the time of being hired. Currently, employees are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. In fact, many employers make exceptions to dress code policy based on some of these attributes. Several current cases are deciding if appearance, such as weight or height, should also be included.
When it comes to dress code vs appearance, what rights should a company have? How about the employee?
Bottom line is companies have the right to enforce any dress code policy they want as long as its stated, in writing, up front. When you go into your job, you know what's expected of you. If there is a part you don't like, you have the choice to not accept that position. Some people just agree to get a position, then fight it the rest of their time at the place of employment; get fired, then they sue screaming discrimination. How many times does a stripper get hired, go up on stage to dance, and refuse to take his/her clothes off because they didn't know the dress code policy??? Zero! Because everything is stated upfront, and the employee knows what they have agreed upon!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. The majority of companies provide a dress code standard, and as employees we can either comply or leave. Thanks for the feedback!
DeleteI was taught that you should dress one step above what company dress code is to show yourself not only as someone that could be on their floor but to stand out. It was also stressed about a nice smile and firm hand shake.
ReplyDeleteAs to having dress codes and what limits can be or should be put on them, that should be determined only by what safety will allow. Foe example look at a hardware store and the shoes required for that kind of work. o the other hand if someone were to work in telemarketing it wouldn't matter if they wore their comfy slippers.
ReplyDeleteThanks Mike for your feedback!
DeleteI agree that safety is an important issue: there is actually case law on the subject. In 1985, in Bhinder v. CNR, a Canadian court ruled that a Sikh male had to remove his turban to wear a hard hat, even though baptized male Sikhs are required to wear turban for religious reasons. Essentially a person cannot opt out of safety. However, although the case was not reversed, courts have taken a harder look. I'll post the case under the "Case Law" section.
DeleteBasically, if they don't pay a clothing allowance or supply uniforms, the only things employers can regulate are: dirty or torn clothing, pant/skirt lengths, shirts with logo/profanity and length/cleveage, and shoes for safety reasons as necessary. Of course, the "dress for success" rule applies if you want to get anywhere.
ReplyDelete