A recent article in USA Today reported that some employers are applying more formal dress codes.  Aside from practical issues involved in enforcing dress codes, legal issues should also be considered to avoid employment claims. 

Dress codes are not gender discriminatory under Title VII even when the specific standards for women and men are different.  However, requirements may not be more burdensome for one gender than the other. 

• A bank that allowed male employees to wear “customary business attire” required its female employees in similar positions to wear a uniform.  The female employees had to purchase the uniform from the bank and pay the bank to have it cleaned and pressed.  A court held that the difference in dress code requirements was facially discriminatory to females. 

A policy that is neutral on its face can still be challenged if applied in a discriminatory way.  Sex discrimination lawsuits are routinely filed by employees alleging that dress code policies are enforced against women, but not men, or vice-versa:

• A female employee sued for sex discrimination when she was disciplined for wearing “tight-fitting shirts” in violation of a dress code that applied to males and females and required “a positive, professional and businesslike appearance.”  She argued that she was treated differently than male employees who also wore tight fitting clothes, but were not disciplined. 

Enforcing dress codes poses an even greater threat of liability for religious discrimination claims.  Title VII requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for employees’ religious beliefs and practices.  Employers may be required to make an exception to dress code policies if the requested accommodation is related to an employee’s sincere religious beliefs and would not result in an “undue hardship” for the employer.

• A Rastafarian employee sued his employer for religious discrimination under Title VII because the employer had ordered him to cut his dreadlocked hair.  The employee never expressly told the employer that his hairstyle related to his religious beliefs.  The court reasoned that the employer was put on notice of the need to consider accommodation when the employee objected that cutting his hair would disrupt his “way of life.” 

The labor and employment attorneys at Taft are always available to answer questions you may have about your company’s dress code policy.