Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Plus size shop employment - is this legal ?

121 replies

laceygo · 07/09/2018 19:49

DD 16 has just filled in an online application for a Saturday job in a plus size clothes shop, and right at the end it says ' all employees are required to wear our clothes as uniform , size range starts at size 16, please tick if you can fulfil this requirement '
Is this legal ? Just sounds a bit off to us

OP posts:

stellabird · 08/09/2018 11:33

I have no problem with this. I shop in plus-size clothes shops and I like that the staff are also in that size range. It makes you feel comfortable when selecting and trying on the clothing.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 08/09/2018 12:47

Having to wear clothes from that shop is a requirement at many clothes shops.

We can wear plain black in our shop

None of us do as the uniform allowance is relatively generous (unlike the pay)

It does seem discriminatory...i am surprised they are allowed to do this

BigBlueBubble · 08/09/2018 12:51

Just tick. There’s no reason why your DD can’t wear the clothes. They’ll just be a bit big. They can’t refuse her a job because she’s too thin.

Miladymilord · 08/09/2018 12:54

I think it's fine. If I wanted a plus size outfit I'd be much happier seeing it on a bigger model. Although 16 isn't huge tbh! It's probably more to put off people who are over a size 16!

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 08/09/2018 12:54

We have some size 6 girls in our shop and they do have to choose carefully as we generally only go down to an 8

Pamdoo · 08/09/2018 12:59

It's discrimination. Topshop or any other retailer wouldn't be able to put it that you had to be under a size 16 to work in there why should they do it for over a size 16? Bizarre.

LassWiADelicateAir · 08/09/2018 13:07

There is nothing "bizarre" about it. The shop, quite reasonably from the point of marketing and customer experience, wants its staff to wear the clothes it sells.

What is so difficult to understand about the fact that if the shop's smallest size is a 16 their clothes are going to look pretty ridiculous on a size 10 employee?

NicoAndTheNiners · 08/09/2018 13:09

What would happen if a bigger person worked there and lost weight, would they be sacked?

withsexypantsandasausagedog · 08/09/2018 13:13

I would tick the box, then either just wear the massive clothes or come up with ways to make them more fitted. I don't think they could challenge legally surely?

Cachailleacha · 08/09/2018 13:16

If a person was a size 12-14 they could wear some size 16 clothes, unless the size 16 is vanity sized and more like an 18. I'm not talking alterations, just careful selection or wearing a belt.

LassWiADelicateAir · 08/09/2018 13:28

I would tick the box, then either just wear the massive clothes or come up with ways to make them more fitted. I don't think they could challenge legally surely?

Size is not a protected characteristic. You would have lied on the application form so yes they could terminate employment.

The shop is entirely within its rights to require its employees to wear the clothes it sells. The reasons for that, from the point of view of good marketing and customer service and experience, have been said several times. What is so difficult to understand about this?

BigBlueBubble · 08/09/2018 14:14

How is it lying on the application form? It says “employees are required to wear our clothes as uniform, size range starts at size 16, please tick if you can fulfil this requirement”. There’s no reason why a smaller person can’t fulfil that requirement. They would just wear clothes that were too big.

BigBlueBubble · 08/09/2018 14:16

Also, gender IS a protected characteristic so if they wouldn’t employ a man because he couldn’t wear the clothes then they are breaking the law.

LassWiADelicateAir · 08/09/2018 14:23

Oh come off it. That is clearly not what is meant. Are you seriously suggesting that wearing a dress 5 or 6 sizes too big is what they meant? Of course ticking that box is lying.

The shop has every right to do this. It is not discrimination either legally or morally.
What do you think the reaction of customers would be to find a size 10 assistant either drowned in oversize clothes or in clothes obviously altered to fit a size 10?

The OP is making an unreasonable fuss about nothing.

BigBlueBubble · 08/09/2018 14:29

It most certainly IS discrimination. There was a court case a few years ago where a lady applied to work in a hair salon and was rejected because she wasn’t able to wear new hairstyles done by the salon. The reason she wasn’t able to is because she was Muslim and wore a headscarf. Religion is a protected characteristic and she won her court case.

Not wearing clothes is the same as not wearing hairstyles. If a protected characteristic prevents you from wearing the clothes then they can’t insist you have to wear them. If they refused to hire a man because he couldn’t wear the clothes he would be able to sue on the grounds of gender discrimination.

Bombardier25966 · 08/09/2018 14:32

@BigBlueBubble this discussion is about size, not gender or faith.

Pamdoo · 08/09/2018 14:32

The reasons for that, from the point of view of good marketing and customer service and experience, have been said several times. What is so difficult to understand about this?

People do understand, you dont need to repeatedly keep asking why they don't. But since when has excluding a large proportion of people from being able to work somewhere (discrimination) been good marketing?
Does anyone actually ever take any notice of what staff are wearing or give a shit where they got it from? If anything, if they look bloody awful in an outfit, it's off putting, so not really good marketing is it?

I love that people chose to defend discrimination as and when it suits them. It's fine to refuse someone a job because they're not the right size now? The world's gone mad.

BigBlueBubble · 08/09/2018 14:39

this discussion is about size, not gender or faith
It’s about discrimination. Gender and faith are both protected characteristics. They can’t insist that employees have to wear the clothes if it prevents them hiring a man. Unfortunately size isn’t a protected characteristic but IMO it should be.

specialsubject · 08/09/2018 15:36

I wear a 16, a 14 and a 12 as part of the same outfit. just tick the box, there will be no standards and something will fit well enough.

LassWiADelicateAir · 08/09/2018 16:08

Does anyone actually ever take any notice of what staff are wearing or give a shit where they got it from?

Yes actually. I do. I gave a specific example of doing so in this thread.

This is not discrimination- legally, morally or ethically.

Original poster

laceygo · 08/09/2018 16:11

@LassWiADelicateAir ermmm excuse me I was not making an 'unreasonable fuss about nothing ' I was merely asking a question and have found the debate very interesting .... but there's always one muppet wading in with 'unreasonable digs at people '

OP posts:

LassWiADelicateAir · 08/09/2018 16:18

Does anyone actually ever take any notice of what staff are wearing or give a shit where they got it from? If anything, if they look bloody awful in an outfit, it's off putting, so not really good marketing is it?

Well anyone who is not a size 16 and above is indeed going to look bloody awful in clothes in an Evans shop- so kind of proves the point. Why do you think shops require staff to wear the clothes they sell?

Going on about wearing a 16 a 12 or a14 is nonsense in relation to the range in specialist shops like Evans. I'm a 14/16 - nothing in Marina Rinaldi (upmarket version of Evans) which starts at 16 fits me.

LassWiADelicateAir · 08/09/2018 16:22

OP - did you think that a business like Evans was going to include a question on its employment application form which was as you put it "not legal"?

Original poster

laceygo · 08/09/2018 16:29

@LassWiADelicateAir I suppose not , (it's yours not Evans ) but it still was unexpected

OP posts:

Pamdoo · 08/09/2018 16:37

This is not discrimination- legally, morally or ethically

Well it is so...

Were Abercrombie and Fitch not in trouble for doing the same thing a few years back? Having a dress policy based on 'marketing' and wanting a specific look?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread