Sexiest dress down policy

Sex discrimination claims challenging the imposition of a dress codes seem to favour the Employer.

In Denise v Metropolitan Police Department (2013), a male trainee police officer, had shoulder length hair, which he kept in a bun. The police force distinguished between men and women, where men were required to wear their hair short and women were required to wear it in a bun. The male trainee was asked to cut his hair. He brought a claim for indirect sex discrimination.
The EAT decided that the ET was right to dismiss the claim on the basis that whilst, when enforcing gender specific provisions in dress code, it is likely that one sex may be treated less favourably than the other. However the Claimant could not be said to be treated less favourably if the dress codes leads to equivalent standards.

In a claim made just after the Sex Discrimination Act into force, Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops (1978), Schmidt, a female employee challenged her employer’s insistence that women should not war trousers. The Tribunal found in favour of the Employer, holding that different dress codes for men and women are acceptable as the burden of restrictions on men were equal to that placed on women.

In Hutchieson v Graham and Morton ltd, a senior female manager was required to wear the same nylon overalls as the rest of her female team. The males on the other hand were allowed to wear lounge suits. It was held that this amounted to a detriment because the uniform pointed towards a lower status than that of male employees of a lower rank. However in Secretary of State for DWP v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348 the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that it was not necessarily discriminatory to impose a certain dress code on men (i.e. the requirement to wear a shirt and tie) but not on women. - See more at: http://www.no5.com/news-and-publica...d-discrimination-claims/#sthash.tKM8ffjk.dpuf
Click to expand...

Despite all that^ I would say that there could be argued to be some discrimination in the respect that women are allowed to wear clothes much more suited to the hot weather than the men.
 
Last edited:
Used to hack me off no end in my previous company where the men had to be in smart trousers and a collared shirt at all times, yet the woman could more or less wear what they wanted as long as it wasn't denim. Men would be sweating it up in a 25 degree office from June to Aug while the women swanned about in light dresses/skirts etc complaining that the aircon was too cold :mad::rolleyes:

Thankfully my current company don't give a stuff and I've been in shorts all week :D
 
Last edited:
I wore shorts every day up to today, the soldiers in full green kit hated me for it.

Felt bad for them as it was roasting but well I'm a civi and therefore not bound by dress regs.
 
anything I don't mind said:
If you don't have a client facing position then i don't see the justification for it. I understand no offensive logo and no camo rules but no shorts just seems sexist. No surprise the hr department is stocked with women.
Click to expand...

Now you just sound like a child. I'm not surprised you struggle to get your boss to listen to you.
 
Skeeter said:
Yes, because the standard dress code policy allows women to have bare legs below the knee.

How are you not getting this? :confused:
Click to expand...
But that would be sexist if the policy allowed women to have bare legs below the knees but not men. There is a clear double standard regarding what's considered acceptable office attire.
 
I'm firmly of the opinion that grown men don't wear shorts in public unless playing sports, it's weak and it invites ridicule.
 
Right now I can feel the breeze coming through the open office windows, lightly ruffling my leg hairs, like a gentle maiden tickling them with her fingertips. I think I might take my trainers and socks off too...
 
Well, women don't normally expose their hairy legs when they wear skirts, which would be an issue for men in shorts so the rule makes sense to me.
 
elmarko said:
But that would be sexist if the policy allowed women to have bare legs below the knees but not men. There is a clear double standard regarding what's considered acceptable office attire.
Click to expand...

It's a double standard of sorts, and sexist in the respect it places a differing requirement on men and women, but it's not discriminatory in a legal sense - there is no greater or lesser burden placed on men and women so neither party is disadvantaged. See the legal reasoning in my previous post.

A dress-down day is a bit more shaky, IMO. You're not adhering to usual smart office requirements. I suppose men in shorts is probably more dressed-down than women in their ordinary summer wear, though
 
It's just another pointless anachronism, if a company can justify the reason why they wish there staff to dress in a certain way then fair enough - otherwise I'd be inclined to find employment elsewhere.

cheesyboy said:
It's a double standard of sorts, and sexist in the respect it places a differing requirement on men and women, but it's not discriminatory in a legal sense - there is no greater or lesser burden placed on men and women so neither party is disadvantaged. See the legal reasoning in my previous post.

A dress-down day is a bit more shaky, IMO. You're not adhering to usual smart office requirements. I suppose men in shorts is probably more dressed-down than women in their ordinary summer wear, though
Click to expand...
I disagree, having worked in both a full casual environment (like this one) & a full suit & tie environment - I can attest to how much more of a burden it is compared to women.

A thin simple elegant & smart dress with sandals is far more suitable in the summer compared to trousers, shoes, shirt & tie (with a jacket) I'm willing to wager, not that I own many nice dresses... :p.
 
Last edited:
I misread the thread title as 'Sexiest dress down policy'. Thread is far less interesting than I thought it would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom