You may well have seen a news item recently about Nicola Thorpe, a temporary worker who was sent home from her job for not wearing high heels. As you would expect, this has caused a lot of controversy and discussion about the individual aspects of this case and the wider context of the need for a dress code at all in many work environments.
Clearly, there are particular circumstances where health and safety requirements and uniform needs make a dress code unavoidable. In the case of uniform, for example, it is often there to identify staff members to the general public or create a team environment amongst the employees. However, in the case of Nicola Thorpe, the need for high heels seems a little less cut and dried.
According to many reports, the employer asked her to adhere to a company policy of wearing heels of between 2 and 4 inches. This seems to raise questions of sexism in the dress code itself because as this is not a matter of safety or branded uniform but is, assuming this is correct, a matter of internal policy. The matter takes an even more complex turn when you add in the advice from podiatrists that wearing high heels can cause a range of issues from back strain to stretched tendons and that heels can begin to cause discomfort in less than two hours of wear.
So can a company set a dress code in this manner?
The short answer is yes, as long as it is within the law, then it is up to the individual business how they ask their employees to present themselves in the workplace. Where the problems arise is when that request is considered unreasonable. In the case of the high heels incident, for example, while it is common for women to wear high heels, requesting the same of male employees would likely be considered ridiculous and even humiliating treatment. Whether that alone justifies the request is another matter.
As an employee, you are expected to adhere to any code of conduct and presentation that is defined in the contract of employment and, even if one is not specifically included, dress appropriately for the role you are undertaking. All this is perfectly legal and above board provided it is administered unilaterally and evenly. Where the question comes in over high heels is that they are specifically female dress. This does not mean, however, that a gender-based dress code is automatically inappropriate. The wearing of a shirt and tie could arguably be raised as another example of specifically gender-based dress code. There have also been cases where it was code for women to wear skirts and men to wear trousers. The wearing of jewellery of religious significance and hair length have also been raised as potentially discriminatory.
What it comes down to is an even-handed policy that is practised fairly by the employer, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the employee. So insisting on a shirt and tie is unlikely to be considered gender-based discrimination as it is a reasonable expectation of a workplace dress code, providing there is a similar standard required of female employees.
Interestingly, the jury seems to be out on whether a dress code is actually required at all.
In some studies, dressing in a more formal manner resulted in people seemingly being more focussed and applied to work tasks. On the other hand, Richard Branson, and possibly most famously, Google, are both known for their disdain of ties and even the formal dress code at all, and in both cases, it would be difficult to prove that it has affected their success.
The case of high heels may be a slightly different matter due to the very specific nature of the footwear and the potential health implications but, in general, a business has every right to impose a specific dress code and not to adhere to it could result in dismissal.