Summer is Here - What Can I Wear?
Dress codes are a potential minefield, and summer often leads to a larger show of skin, garb such as tank tops and shorts, and displays of tattoos and piercings not visible at other times of the year. But are they appropriate office wear?
There is no federal law on dress codes. The following are some guidelines:
Dress codes can be different for male and female employees. The standards for each gender must be reasonable for your business environment. Generally, courts take the position that since dress codes do not involve immutable characteristics, they do not necessary affect bias.
The best protection is to avoid requirements that differentiate solely because of gender. “Suit and tie” would best be replaced by “professional business attire.” Some states have passed laws affecting dress codes. California law prohibits employers from restricting women from wearing pants in their company dress code.
In general, an employer’s best bet is to limit dress codes to health and safety concerns, and to those employees whose jobs require them to deal with the public on a face to face basis. Employers should closely scrutinize the potential impact of a dress code stipulation on minorities, women, members of religious groups or people with disabilities. If the implementation of a dress code rule may have a disparate impact on one or more of these groups, you should have a business reason for the rule and make reasonable accommodations for employees that might be put at a disadvantage because of it.
Business reasons include promoting a positive image, improving productivity, and complying with health and safety standards.
Clear communication of your policy, the reasons behind it and the consequences of failure to comply are critical to avoiding potential litigation. Courts have held that long beards and flowing robes can be prohibited where public health concerns exist, as in food service, but sanctions have been levied for prohibiting the wearing of yarmulkes and other religious head coverings. EEOC guidelines caution employers that prohibiting forms of ethnic dress, such as traditional African or Indian attire, could be deemed discrimination on the basis of national origin.
Employees may be required to wear uniforms, but this must be consistently applied regardless of gender. Instances where the uniform requirement may be seen as risqué or suggestive have been closely scrutinized by the courts. Employers requiring uniforms also have additional responsibilities regarding the payment for, supply and upkeep of them.
Complications may arise as casual dress is the norm today in many offices. When implementing a casual dress code, it is important that you are clear on where you draw the line. If flip-flop sandals, cut-off shorts or t-shirts with sayings and slogans are not appropriate in your work place, state that unequivocally, preferably in writing. Whatever prohibitions you put in place, remember to equally apply them.
The right balance between requiring appropriate dress among your employees and respecting their legal rights will remain tricky, especially with younger employees who may have never worn “business clothes.” Statistics from recent studies have found that approximately half of Americans in their 20s have a body piercing somewhere beside their ears and one in four Americans between 18 and 50 are tattooed.
To sum up, it is very helpful to know what dress code standards others in your industry and settings have and to insure that if yours are significantly different, you have appropriate reasons for adopting them. Be certain you communicate your policy very clearly, are consistent in its application, and that your employees understand the reasons behind a prohibition. Respect religious or ethnic clothing choices whenever they do not conflict with health and safety concerns and justifiable business practices.
Should you like to update or implement a dress code policy, HR4Hire looks forward to working with you to make sure the written policies protect you and are clearly understood by your employees.
Please forward this to those whom it may benefit. We can be reached at info@HR4Hire.com or at 415-437-6755 or 707-935-3333 for further information.
Cordially,
Gae Shulman, President
HR4Hire
HR Intelligence Check:
Employee A does not disclose that she had been sexually harassed until her employer questioned her about a co-worker’s sexual harassment complaint (against a third individual). Employee A revealed that the alleged harasser had also sexually harassed her in the past. Does federal law protect Employee A from retaliation by the employer?
a) Yes, the Supreme Court recently said that an employee is protected from retaliation for opposing discrimination if he or she reports discriminatory conduct during an internal investigation of another employee’s complaint.
b) No, the Supreme Court recently said an employee isn’t protected from retaliation for opposing discrimination if he or she reports discriminatory conduct during an internal investigation of another employee’s complaint.
c) The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on this particular issue yet, so it is still unclear.
Answer to previous blog’s HR Challenge Question:
Employers may be able to make deductions from an employee’s accrued vacation or PTO leave bank during a short-term lay-off without affecting that person’s FLSA-exempt status, so long as the employee’s salary remains constant for the pay period. Therefore, an employer could implement short-term lay-offs, so long as each affected employee received compensation for the time off.
If you’d like the read the question this answers, scroll down to the bottom of the April 2009 blog on Job Descriptions or click here.
(according to Organization: Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Stewart, P.C.
Newsletter: Employment And Labor Update - March 2009)
