A British woman started a petition because she should show up to work in high-heeled shoes. With success: Dress codes must not be sexist.
Can receptionists be required to show up to work in pumps and heels? A UK temp agency actually had this requirement in their policies. It places receptionists with well-known companies, including the management consultancy and auditing company PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Temporary worker Nicola Thorp should be used for this. Before her assignment, the 27-year-old was instructed to wear at least shoes with heels between five and ten centimeters. Otherwise, she could look for another job, the young woman said.
However, Thorp found this requirement to be sexist – especially since the male colleagues were not made such regulations. She launched an online petition which was quickly signed by more than 100,000 Britons. Parliament now has to deal with the matter. It is even conceivable that this could become a law that would generally prohibit British employers from obliging women to wear high heels.
Time and again legal disputes over dress codes
The action quickly spread online and in the international press. PwC explained that there are no dress codes for employees in terms of footwear – although Thorp was not a PwC employee, just a temporary worker. In the meantime, however, the rental company has also reacted and revised its guidelines, the company said on Twitter.
Dress codes repeatedly lead to legal disputes between employees and employers. Because most companies operate with their guidelines in a gray area of labor law. In Germany, on the one hand, the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) protects against sexist discrimination or disadvantage. And the personal rights contained in the Basic Law also protect employees against overly strict regulations. Nevertheless, employers have the right to issue instructions to their employees regarding clothing and external appearance due to their authority to issue instructions and their right to direct. However, such requirements may only serve the legitimate interest that employees who come into contact with customers have a well-groomed appearance. However, they must not curtail personal rights, turn out to be sexist, or even pose a health risk. And if there is a works council in the company, it always has a right of co-determination when it comes to clothing regulations.
In Germany, the drugstore chain Budnikowsky was criticized for distributing clothing recommendations to employees. Among other things, the employees were advised to shave their legs if they wanted to wear shorter skirts. They should also avoid flashy make-up and brightly colored nail polish. After the recommendations became public, the drugstore chain reacted immediately and announced that the “guidance” would no longer be practiced.
In Switzerland, the USB bank made headlines in 2010 when it advised female employees in a dress code to wear skin-colored panties. Here, too, the bank withdrew the regulation when it became public knowledge.
Name bra size for better consulting service?
In Sweden, an employee of a lingerie chain successfully sued for damages because the employer wrote her name and cup size on the name tag and forced the employee to wear this in sales. The reasoning of the management: In this way, one could offer the customers a better advisory service because they could judge the cup size using the living example of the saleswoman. The court took a different view here: the judges argued that the employee had been sexually discriminated against and her dignity violated by the company’s instruction. The company had to pay the woman around 6,000 euros.
And even the state-run Indian airline Air India had a discriminatory instruction withdrawn after there were public protests. The airline had requested the body mass index from its stewardesses over 40 years of age. It was said that anyone who was too fat should no longer be allowed to fly. Trade unions saw the regulation as an attempt to put pressure on older employees who were difficult to fire through weight checks. But the measure was eventually withdrawn.
Editorial Team
Comments are closed.