Dress codes: are they beneficial?

[SassyCassie]

My office has recently updated its dress code and the only footwear listed for women is 'appropriate heels'. This is very upsetting (not only for my collection of flats) but the health risks they can cause. A quick Google search shows that heels can affect circulation in the legs and cause feet, knee and back pains. I cannot believe this is seen as justifiable for the sake of 'appropriate' footwear, despite many flat footwear options being just as formal and smart.
Has anyone else had this sort of issue? If so is it something that could be resolved with higher management teams?

Whatever the job, the employer could be liable for workplace accidents, so women twisting ankles from wearing too high heels can't be desirable for any employer.

I read that as if you're wearing heels ensure they are sensible and not silly high. I don't think it's anything against flats?

Whatever the job, the employer could be liable for workplace accidents, so women twisting ankles from wearing too high heels can't be desirable for any employer.

No an employer would not be liable for this unless the employer had insisted on it as part of a uniform.

"How is forcing women to wear heels not gender based discrimination?

It isn't forcing women to wear high heels. Quite the opposite. Are you going to make a fuss on behalf of women who want to wear high heels but can't under this policy?"

What? How is that relevant to anything? Oh no, women making a fuss... lol.

I just stated, very clearly, that I believe that company dress codes that mandate women wearing high heels are wrong. That does not mean that this dress code is one of those. I stated that extremely clearly in my post, where I went on to say that most likely she could wear a shoe she felt was appropriate. Their policy does not mandate high heels. That is obvious in the wording. Even if the overall ethos/intention was to make women wear high heels, they would have to amend their policy to stipulate that as it currently doesn't.

I asked a rhetorical question, as we were talking about the issue in general, as to whether it was discrimination for a company to mandate high heels for women. It is. As to whether it is discrimination in the eyes of the law, and as to whether all companies would even abide by that if it was specifically written into law, that's a separate issue also.

Yes, I am fully aware this company policy is not explicitly forcing women to wear high heels.

Are you saying that forcing women to wear high heels isn't gender-based discrimination?

No an employer would not be liable for this unless the employer had insisted on it as part of a uniform

You may know better than me, but not forbidding it could fall under allowing it, and therefore liable.

I just stated, very clearly, that I believe that company dress codes that mandate women wearing high heels are wrong

So you keep saying- although it is irrelevant here.

No an employer would not be liable for this unless the employer had insisted on it as part of a uniform

You may know better than me, but not forbidding it could fall under allowing it, and therefore liable

Yes I do and no they would not.

An employer has a duty to provide a safe work place in the context of the work being undertaken. If there are worn or tattered carpet or loose floor tiles they are potential trip hazards for everyone. I tripped over a loose floor tile when the toe of my flat shoe caught in it. The employer has no responsibility for someone who can't walk in their chosen shoes assuming there is nothing at fault in the workplace.

Are you saying that forcing women to wear high heels isn't gender-based discrimination?

Where on earth do you get that from. You got the wrong end of the stick and have been posting at length on a point which is irrelevant to the OP's situation.

Oh and I think you mean "sex- based discrimination"

"Yes I do?" so you're saying you know better than Lweji? Maybe you do, I don't know, but I was a bit surprised to see that statement.

The whole issue is that the OP was concerned that her dress code may be saying that she cannot wear her flat shoes. She sounded worried and upset about it and had looked up the health risks.

So I really don't see how talking about company codes that mandate high heels for women is irrelevant, as you just stated. It's the whole issue, and most certainly isn't irrelevant. Discussing the issue does not mean that people are saying that her specific company is demanding that. The wording in her uniform policy is unclear. But many companies do attempt to mandate this.

Lass, the whole point is the OP was concerned she may have to wear high heels. She sounded worried. People wanted to help. People looked up relevant documents in an attempt to help. If you don't see that, I really don't know what to say. It is very clear from the original post that is what she was concerned about. How is the issue of women being forced to wear heels irrelevant to the OP's situation when that is what she was posting about?

It isn't forcing women to wear heels. It is prohibiting them wearing very high heels.

This is also my immediate interpretation. Appropriate heels does not mean high heels. It means, I would think, sensible shoes, as in flats, but not too casual, such as trainers, which have no heels.

Any dress code, when not based on objective criteria like safety boot standards, can be problematic and not just on sex based grounds. For example I have a leg/ankle disability which means I can only wear trainers or soft ballet flats. I have no difficulty with my employer but any employer who complains about someone on such grounds would be facing an ET claim for disability discrimination

People wanted to help. People looked up relevant documents in an attempt to help. If you don't see that, I really don't know what to say

Plenty of people had already pointed it out it is not saying she has to wear high heels when you jumped in.

I’m translating this as any smart sensible footwear but not 6” killer heel stilettos or trainers

Appropriate heels for me is perfect. Because heels that are appropriate for me are barely there heels matching say men's heels. I think because they have given no indication or clarity on what is meant by appropriate heels there is scope for interpretation.

If they mean flat or lowish heels, then they should say so.

At the moment, they are saying women must wear heeled shoes, as the requirement is for appropriate heels. Flats are excluded by definition. And that's why the wording is wring (the underlying aim may or may not be)

It is not good to have poorly and unclearly worded policies, and of course unfair to do so if disciplinary action couid arise from breaches of the policy. This company needs to change the wording (as a minimum - they should also be changing the substance if they really are requiring heels (appropriate or otherwise))

What one doesn’t know about shoes!
www.shoeguide.org/shoe_anatomy/

The policy in question is worded correctly.

Flats are excluded by definition.

Flat heels are also heels.
High heels are--- high heels.

I think the description is perfectly clear; it leaves something to one's individual preference. If they had demanded exact heights etc people would be complaining they were too authoritarian!

www.shoeguide.org/shoe_anatomy/

Heel: The heel is the part of the sole that raises the rear of the shoe in relation to the front. The heel seat is the top of the heel that touches the upper, this is typically shaped to match the form of the upper. The part of the the heel that comes in contact with the ground is known as the the top piece.

I realize that the UK and the US have innumerable differences in work policies et al. My point on clarity wasn't about rocking the boat unnecessarily - it was about getting clarity on the guidelines for OP's comfort.

Smaller companies in the US get away with all manners of bizarre policies. There are companies here that have 'business casual' guidelines that prohibit women from wearing comfortable shoes i.e. ballet flats or trainers as they are seen as casual not business casual wear. However, those guidelines are often open to interpretation to give the company a great deal of play room in regards to enforcement.

Be advised - US laws regarding employee mandates are basically non-existent when a company has fewer than 50 full-time employees. Yes, the protected classes have some protection but unless the infractions against an employee are well documented (they often magically disappear from HR files, meaning employees must be versed on personal legally permissable documentation) the claims are often found to be meritless. Also, we have right-to-work and no-right-to-work states (union and non-union) as well as at-will (employer or company can end employment without notice for ANY reason) and contract employment (employment can only be ended via contractual terms or parties face mediation or litigation). The aforementioned can hyper complicate what an employer can and can not require of employees in regards to dress codes, performance, etc. This all gets even messier when you consider individual contractors (not employees but perform similar work with different oversight). Our FMLA (family medical leave - sickness/pregnancy) laws don't apply unless all conditions are met (also does not apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees in a 75 mile radius).

So excuse (no snark, genuine) the push for clarity - sometimes clarity (in writing of course because people lie) is all US workers can hold as truth.