How We Used to Dress

[David Copeland]

Ha, yeah, that is 100% a lawsuit waiting to happen. That guy is a chump.

Then call him directly.

Here is his name: Donald Trump

If you want his phone, private message me.

 

[David Copeland]

You would struggle to enforce a 'no trousers' rule for women in the UK. Likely to be illegal.

Untrue, unless on religious grounds. It's all in the company policy manual and based on both UK law and European Law:

"An employer can have a dress code that requires female employees to wear a skirt, but it should apply such a code sensitively and consider exemptions in some cases.

The position under current case law (see Smith v Safeway plc [1996] IRLR 456 CA) is that, provided that the employer applies a comparable or equivalent standard of smartness and conventionality across the sexes, the employer should not be held to have directly discriminated on the grounds of sex by enforcing different requirements for men and women, such as requiring women to wear skirts. There have been some cases where employers have been found to have discriminated against women for requiring the wearing of skirts where the employer has not had an even-handed dress code policy for both sexes. Modern standards of acceptable dress and conventionality may make it increasingly difficult for employers to apply such a rule without the risk of a successful discrimination claim.

In addition, female employees of certain faiths who have a religious requirement to cover their legs may challenge an employer that applies a "skirts only" policy to female employees. Such a requirement may be held to be indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of religion or belief. It may be difficult for an employer to justify a requirement to wear a skirt where an alternative of wearing a smart trouser suit would be regarded as reasonable.

It is also arguable that a requirement for women to wear skirts at work may contravene art.10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom of expression), when taken together with art.14 (the anti-discrimination right). As yet there have been no cases brought on this basis.

 

[aravenel]



Then call him directly.

Here is his name:  Donald Trump 

If you want his phone, private message me.

Is that supposed to... What? Be good? Impress us?

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Then call him directly.

Here is his name: Donald Trump

Donald Trump, you say? Now there's a compelling argument...

 

[Calder]

Untrue, unless on religious grounds. It's all in the company policy manual and based on both UK law and European Law:

"An employer can have a dress code that requires female employees to wear a skirt, but it should apply such a code sensitively and consider exemptions in some cases.

The position under current case law (see Smith v Safeway plc [1996] IRLR 456 CA) is that, provided that the employer applies a comparable or equivalent standard of smartness and conventionality across the sexes, the employer should not be held to have directly discriminated on the grounds of sex by enforcing different requirements for men and women, such as requiring women to wear skirts.

Smith vs. Safeway was a case bought upon hairstyling in reference to a the business conventionality of a style. You are on very shaky ground if you try to apply that decision to bar women from wearing a smart, business conventional ladies trousersuit; the court would almost certainly hold that such an outfit met the culturally accepted standards of conventional business clothing for women.

 

[VinnyMac]

pm'ed

 

[Chowkin]

Untrue, unless on religious grounds. It's all in the company policy manual and based on both UK law and European Law:

"An employer can have a dress code that requires female employees to wear a skirt, but it should apply such a code sensitively and consider exemptions in some cases.

The position under current case law (see Smith v Safeway plc [1996] IRLR 456 CA) is that, provided that the employer applies a comparable or equivalent standard of smartness and conventionality across the sexes, the employer should not be held to have directly discriminated on the grounds of sex by enforcing different requirements for men and women, such as requiring women to wear skirts. There have been some cases where employers have been found to have discriminated against women for requiring the wearing of skirts where the employer has not had an even-handed dress code policy for both sexes. Modern standards of acceptable dress and conventionality may make it increasingly difficult for employers to apply such a rule without the risk of a successful discrimination claim.

In addition, female employees of certain faiths who have a religious requirement to cover their legs may challenge an employer that applies a "skirts only" policy to female employees. Such a requirement may be held to be indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of religion or belief. It may be difficult for an employer to justify a requirement to wear a skirt where an alternative of wearing a smart trouser suit would be regarded as reasonable.

It is also arguable that a requirement for women to wear skirts at work may contravene art.10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom of expression), when taken together with art.14 (the anti-discrimination right). As yet there have been no cases brought on this basis.

Even UBS allowed women to wear pant suits in its much ridiculed dress code:

 

[David Copeland]

Smith vs. Safeway was a case bought upon hairstyling in reference to a the business conventionality of a style. You are on very shaky ground if you try to apply that decision to bar women from wearing a smart, business conventional ladies trousersuit; the court would almost certainly hold that such an outfit met the culturally accepted standards of conventional business clothing for women.

If you had read the complete article, you would have seen that there has yet been a winnable lawsuit prevail against an employer who requires women to wear dresses or skirts - as long as their policy is the same professional standard for men in suites, shirts, and ties.

For the USA, the Walt Disney Company prevailed when an employee tried to pierce their dress standards.

Note: It appears there is much hostility over companies who have the legal and lawful right to require women to be professionally dressed in skirts or dresses. I suspect those with hostile views would never work for a federal court judge or a law firm or any other professional company with the same policy. To them . . . continue on with your casual approach to personal employment.

My best,

David

 

[msulinski]

Quote:
I think the hostility stems from what is essentially blatant sexism. There is no reason a woman cannot be professionally dressed in a pant suit. After all, men can be considered professionally dressed in one. Just because there are those that disagree with this does not mean that we are taking a "casual approach to personal employment." I work for and have worked for many professional companies that have no such policy and are completely professional.

If you want to continue to keep your head in the sand and pretend that this is all perfectly acceptable, go ahead.

BTW, the fact that Donald Trump would have such a policy in-place does not surprise me. Not that I needed any more confirmation of the fact that he is a complete a@@hole, but this fact certainly helps.

 

[David Copeland]

I think the hostility stems from what is essentially blatant sexism. There is no reason a woman cannot be professionally dressed in a pant suit. After all, men can be considered professionally dressed in one. Just because there are those that disagree with this does not mean that we are taking a "casual approach to personal employment." I work for and have worked for many professional companies that have no such policy and are completely professional.

If you want to continue to keep your head in the sand and pretend that this is all perfectly acceptable, go ahead.

BTW, the fact that Donald Trump would have such a policy in-place does not surprise me. Not that I needed any more confirmation of the fact that he is a complete a@@hole, but this fact certainly helps.

I don't believe the CIA takes a casual approach to professional dress for their employed women. Pant suits are more the norm than dresses.

I also don't believe the Congressional Intern Aids in Washington DC take a casual approach to pants if the choice is made.

On the other hand, visit any department store and we find the women's section bloated with professional dress, skirts, and pants. That said, the women appear to be driving the use of skirts and dresses in the work place more than what an employer would presume.

Moreover, many women choose not not prefer pants over skirts or dresses because if may highlight their big rear-ends too much. Skirts and dresses have a tenancy to hide large hips and rears - even though some women care less about what men may see in pants.

(My, my . . . and this in a topic about "What we used to wear")

My best to you this weekend,

David

 

[msulinski]

I'm confused - you say the CIA does not take a casual approach, yet they have a lot of pant suits? This seems to contradict what you said earlier.

I have no objection to women wearing skirt or pant suits. I just take issue with a policy that forces them to wear skirt suits.

 

[VinnyMac]

In my opinion, this is called progress i.e. liberation from silly traditions that contribute little to productivity.

If you believe that, then you must be here strictly for the lawlz because that's the exact opposite of what happens on SF

 

[mhdena]

A three piece ratchets up the style factor by about 50% over a two piece.

 

[Claghorn]

I miss the days when I could wear dresses to work.

On another note, I used to work for a sizable international Korean company. There were two offices in Seoul, one the HQ and one in the HQ building of our biggest client. There was no dress code for women (other than business) at the other office or any of the international offices, but the HQ had a very strict uniform for its women. And it was ugly. Very, very ugly. They were, however, given the uniform with both pants and a skirt, so at least they had that option. This uniform extended all the way up the food chain for women, but Korea having the worst gender gap in the developed world, all the way up the food chain wasn't very high (the company has about 3,000 employees...as far as I know, the most senior female employee is the equivalent of a mid level manager at a regional level).

The men just had to wear suits (and the jacket needed to be on every time we left the building).

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Hmmm. Maybe our foreign policy would have been more successful if Clinton had been wearing skirts. Obviously she has never taken her jobs seriously. Just trying to picture Obama, or anyone else, declaring a skirts only policy in the executive branch.


By the way, if a woman wears a pants suit, the jacket will cover her rear, unless she chooses a style that looks otherwise.


As time goes by the dinosaurs will die out. The notion that women would be required to wear skirts or dresses will seem as bizarre as the debate over whether they should be allowed to vote.