I've been told I dress too smartly at work...

[Appletina]

and I've been told I need to dress more casually.

I tend to wear smart day dresses, or skirts with a top or blouse, from places like Hobbs, Reiss, Jaeger. I don't wear jackets or blazers or full on suits. I wear low heels.

I work with the public and apparently my dress sense could be perceived as intimidating and so I am to dress more casually... I think that's a ridiculous and patronising thing to say about the great British public!

AIBU to continue to keep dressing as I am?

Laurie if they came to a financial agreement with a NDA you wouldn’t find out would you.

Laurie if they came to a financial agreement with a NDA you wouldn’t find out would you.

That wouldn’t be a particularly bad outcome for the company though. They’d be happy to pay to get rid of someone quietly.

Flowery I will “explicitly state” that unless a dress code is discriminatory, an employer can absolutely tell someone how to dress. Up to you if you believe me or not, but I would caution you not to assume anyone saying an employer “can’t” do something actually knows what on earth they are talking about...

I’m still eagerly awaiting someone to educate me on the legal basis for saying an employer can’t impose a (non discriminatory) dress code, by the way.....

Jesus Christ. Flowery - I do have a job! Heres your free education, which you (a) won't understand and (b) could have looked up yourself.

Any dress code must form part of the employee's terms and conditions of employment. The t&cs cannot be changed unilaterally, they must be agreed with the employee.

Any dress code must be justifiable, legal, reasonable and non-discriminatory. There must be a legitimate aim to it and it must be and the dress code requirement must be necessary to achieve that aim. I don't see how an employer could prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the wearing of a Hobbs dress or a skirt and top (as long as decent) transgressed a reasonable dress code for a legitimate aim.

Dress codes for men and women don't have to be the same but they must be equivalent.

So an employer would have to be fairly scrupulous in being able to prove that the requirement was a reasonable requirement of the workplace and not directly or indirectly discriminatory on grounds of e.g. sex or religion, and also not a breach of Article 10 of the ECHR - freedom of expression.

Employers cannot go around dictating what women wear because they do not like their choice of reasonable clothing. The requirement must appear in the dress code so as to form part of the contract of employment and even then, it must be a reasonable, non-discriminatory requirement. People may choose to dress in a similar way in a workplace which does not have a dress code, but this is not reasonably enforceable.

The unilateral comments towards the OP are so potentially indirectly discriminatory on grounds of sex that the employer is treading very dangerous territory. The choice of clothing is clearly suitable for the given workplace and its difficult to think how the employer could justify such objective, appearance based comments to a female employee.

Furthermore, if there is no male equivalent to the requirement, it will likely be discrimination. So for instance, if some of the OP's male colleagues wear trousers that are not jeans but are reasonably smart, this would be unlawful discrimination against the OP.

It is very difficult for an employer to justify objective value judgements such as the perceived smartness of suitable workplace clothing without being potentially discriminatory.

Picking on female employees for wearing day dresses, skirts and blouses is discriminatory because it leaves them with little alternative clothing other than trousers, and if female employees are required to wear trousers, this must be stated in the dress code (however unless justifiable) that would be discriminatory. And that isn't what has happened here. The OP has not contravened her employer's dress code and has had an arbitrary value judgment as to her appearance imposed upon her. It smells very much of gender bias.

The legal basis is therefore the relevant provisions in the Equality Act 2010, Article 10 ECHR and all relevant case law.

FWIW Flowery you are approaching this from the wrong angle. It is not up to the OP to prove the employer's comments to her wrong, it is up to the employer to justify them in law. If the OP then were to suffer a detriment in her employment as a result of this arbitrary requirement, that would constitute unlawful victimisation under the Equality Act. You are also confusing the law not being applied correctly with the law itself.

OK, I'm only responding in such detail because I can use it for my work in future. Obviously I haven't done it to formal standards/Harvard referencing.

The House of Commons Petitions Committee and Women and Equalities Committee produced a report in January 2017, which favoured an approach based on detailed guidance, awareness campaigns and 'persuasive enforcement' by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). (Judging by this thread, it hasn't been too successful!) This approach includes providing fresh guidance, an awareness campaign to help workers understand how they can make formal complaints and bring claims if they believe they have been subjected to discriminatory treatment at work, etc..

Note the case law - in Smith v Safeway Plc, where the Court commented that a workplace dress code containing differing rules for men and women will not amount to sex discrimination where it adopts an even-handed approach in applying contemporary standards of conventional dress and, when taken as a whole, does not treat either gender less favourably than others.

There is a lack of case law in this area but that does not mean that discrimination does not occur. Again, I would suggest that you do not confuse lack of enforcement of the law with the law itself. It is the sort of matter that should be resolved between employer and employee, and if the request had been put to me as it had been to the OP, I would have pointed this out in a non-contentious but firm way. I have had to do similar things in the past in my employment, and it has always gone well for me, resolved the issue and not caused me future problems.

LaurieMarlow-

“That wouldn’t be a particularly bad outcome for the company though. They’d be happy to pay to get rid of someone quietly.”

Ah well that’s ok then.

Ah well that’s ok then

I’m not saying this is right or wrong, just how it would be viewed by the company.

If they want rid of someone they’ll find a way.

Unless the labels are on the outside, I wouldn't be able to identify them at all.

Except it isn't gender bias.
Nobody has said you can't wear skirts or dresses.

They've commented on a level of formality, something which applies to men and women.

Flowery -

“ will “explicitly state” that unless a dress code is discriminatory, an employer can absolutely tell someone how to dress. Up to you if you believe me or not, but I would caution you not to assume anyone saying an employer “can’t” do something actually knows what on earth they are talking about...”.

Goodness me Flowery, talk about an own goal.

QualCheckBot has now explained it in great detail. Any rebuttals?

It isn’t just Flowery that doesn’t understand.

Lola Smiles Except it isn't gender bias. Nobody has said you can't wear skirts or dresses.

They've commented on a level of formality, something which applies to men and women.

No. There is no male equivalent here.

LolaSmiles-
“They've commented on a level of formality, something which applies to men and women.”

How do you know. Have you seen the dress code?

There is a male equivalent - no formal business suits or ties.

All the legal stuff in the world doesn’t make much difference.

If your dress is a problem, your employer may take steps to manage you out.

Now it would have to be a fairly extreme example for this to happen, but I can imagine, say, a creative agency who present themselves as very edgy would not be happy with an employee who insisted on always wearing a suit and tie.

Though it’s probably more likely to harm progression than anything.

I’m not saying that’s right, but it’s how these businesses work.

Alsohuman There is a male equivalent - no formal business suits or ties.

That's not equivalent because (a) the OP isn't wearing formal business suits and (b) the employer would have to go around scrutinising the informality of male employee's clothing against an objective standard and making value judgements about popular brands and then telling those male employees that they couldn't wear them, for the same reasons as the OP.

That's ignoring the fact that it most likely doesn't appear in the dress code and isn't enforceable anyway because this attempt at applying a rule is entirely arbitrary.

Unreal 😂 We’re now over 450 comments in, several other comments from OP, and she still hasn’t told us WHO made the comment. If it was just a same-level colleague in passing, then significantly more than half this thread is pointless (comments about bosses, being sacked, employment rights, etc).

IF OP ever decides to say who made the comment, then maybe this thread will make sense. And truly, I think it only matters if it’s your boss. And then, OP will have to figure out if she has an employment dress code (she said she’s checking for one), and IF she answers about that.... with one, boss may not matter; without one, boss may be the final word and these 460 comments will be for nowt because OP is just going to have to do what her boss says or face the consequences.

How do you know. Have you seen the dress code?

Evidently not (as nobody has) but formality applies to men and women. If a comment is made about appearing approachable then that's relevant to men and women.

I love how suggesting that formality isn't a gender issue gets rebuked with "but have you seen the dress code", but nobody seems to take that line when people have asserted it's clearly sexism and about telling women to be good little girls etc.

As many of us have said, until the OP clarifies who made the comment and the context of it, we can't say either way whether they are right or wrong.

An employer is perfectly within their rights to have dress code and stipulate formality as part of that though. It's not wrong for an employer to expect staff to smarten up / dress down as appropriate.

I find it extraordinary that ppl are trying to make this about gender discrimination when men are far more likely than women to be told to dress down in the workplace (in my experience).

RightYesButNo
I'm going to guess someone with some seniority of sorts from their refusal to answer the question multiple times.

Otherwise it's really simple:
Gossipy colleague - ignore and continue as normal
Manager / boss / someone more senior - probably worth taking the advice, being a little more casual in attire because we all adapt to organisations and that's part and parcel of getting on

Of course, there's also the option of manager/someone senior = decide it's totally and utterly unreasonable to have any dip in formality because I dress in a way that shows respect and so I'm going to refuse and start saying 'but it doesn't specifically stipulate formal dresses aren't allowed' and generally being awkward, but I would probably say that's a fairly stupid hill to die on for what is essentially a nod to be a little less formal.

Actually, it’s been a very interesting debate. I don’t consider it a waste or ‘for nowt’.

I’m not surprised that the OP hasn’t been back. Probably got fed up of being told that (1) she must be useless at her job because she wears intimidating dresses and cardigans, (2) her clothes are just the outward sign and in fact her colleagues think she’s not sensitive enough, as demonstrated by her clothes and (3) she will definitely get sacked or ‘managed out’ for her audacious dress-wearing ways, even though we don’t know who made the remark. Oh yes, and she needs to pop out to buy some cheaper frocks.

I’d bail, in her position!

Tonnerre-

“That depends (a) on whether OP has been employed for two years and, if not, (b) on whether similar informal dress rules apply for men.”

Wrongful dismissal doesn’t have a qualifying period and is based upon breach of contract by the employer.

It has been an interesting debate, if a somewhat beginner level one.

Its all just really backing up what the Government report I mention into dress codes says. The issue is poorly understood and uncertain.

Also, sadly, it shows that there are a lot of women out there who think putting up with this sort of judgement on their choice of clothing at work is acceptable, and/or who would be intimated into objecting to it or compelled into following it because of perceived detriments that might happen to them if they did not.

Its sad, and pretty old fashioned (despite all the protestations of being cool and hip by wearing black jeans at work) but then we can't all be lawyers.

Lola I was the one who said have you seen the dress code. If the OP came to me when I was still practicing law thats one of the questions I would ask.

Perhaps the OP hasn’t come back because she’s seeking clarification of the dress code, if there is one.

QualCheckBot- sorry if I sound like a beginner, but perhaps the detriment is in fact to the OP's employer rather than to her personally. If she insists on continuing to wear clothes which have been judged as too formal, she may well have a negative impact on her company's performance in their industry.
I'm not for one second suggesting that different levels of formality should apply to men and women, or that dress codes should be particularly prescriptive, but please could you explain why it is so unreasonable of an employer to request that their employees dress more casually

Ownerofdlurcher QualCheckBot- sorry if I sound like a beginner, but perhaps the detriment is in fact to the OP's employer rather than to her personally. If she insists on continuing to wear clothes which have been judged as too formal, she may well have a negative impact on her company's performance in their industry.

I mean beginner level, as its sort of thing covered in first or second year at uni.

This just isn't a reasonable or justifiable requirement in any shape or form. The clothes are not "formal" but they are being judged for being too smart. Its highly unlikely that the equivalent level judgment is being applied to men's trousers.

Specifically in answer to your question, it would be almost impossible for an employer to prove that, in the absence of a very specific dress code, that it was reasonable to expect an appropriately dressed employee to change their clothing based on an arbitrary requirement such as "informality".

What hasn't even been mentioned so far is that could quite possibly be a case of workplace bullying, in that the OP has been singled out for doing something perfectly reasonable in the workplace and some attempt at disciplining her made. It would of course depend upon the facts, but it is a possibility.

I'm also saddened and disappointed that there are so many compliant women around, prepared to accept this, who clearly believe all the bull excuses given for these sorts of things. Most employers are in fact all too aware of employment law, and many pay for ongoing employment law support just in case they get it wrong. This is the sort of thing that can potentially cause problems for an employer, and therefore its best left alone or done very carefully. Do the ends justify the means? Almost certainly not. Its not worth any sensible employer taking such risks.