Gender-based dress codes

Last updated

Gender-based dress codes are dress codes that establish separate standards of clothing and grooming for men and women. These dress codes may also contain specifications related to the wearing of cosmetics and heels and the styling of hair. Gender-based dress codes are commonly enforced in workplaces and educational institutions. Dress codes with gendered requirements may disproportionately impact workers and students who are women, gender nonconforming, transgender, or non-binary.

Contents

About

LGBT rights organizations have advised against mandatory gender-based dress codes. According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), "If an employer has a dress code, it should modify it to avoid gender stereotypes and enforce it consistently." The HRC lists policies requiring women to wear skirts or men to wear pants as an example of a dress code that reinforces gender stereotypes. [1]

Canada

Gender-based dress codes are considered a form of sex discrimination in Ontario. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, "sexualized" or "gender-specific" dress codes may harm women, reinforce gender stereotypes, and exclude transgender people and other marginalized groups. [2]

United States

Federal courts in the United States have generally ruled that gender-based dress codes do not constitute sex discrimination. Mandatory gender-based dress codes in the workplace have been referred to as a "Title VII blind spot" by Jessica Robinson, writing for the Nebraska Law Review. [3]

Clothing

Some states explicitly protect the right of women workers to wear pants at work. California law states that "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to permit an employee to wear pants on account of the sex of the employee." [4]

Cosmetics

Gender-based dress codes may require women to wear cosmetics or forbid men from wearing them. In Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co. (2006), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that is was not sex discrimination for a casino in Nevada to fire a woman worker who choose not to wear makeup to work. [5]

Hair

While initially divided, federal courts in the United States have subsequently unanimously ruled that separate hair lengths for men and women do not constitute sex discrimination under Title VII. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has concluded that "absent a showing of a business necessity" separate grooming standards for men and women do constitute sex discrimination under Title VII. The EEOC has ruled that male workers may sue if discriminated against on the basis of sex for having long hair. [6]

Women in the workplace with facial hair may experience difficulties that men with facial hair may not experience. In 1994, a woman in Tysons, Virginia, was fired from her job at a Ritz-Carlton hotel for having a mustache. Following her complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the worker's job was reinstated and the hotel issued an apology. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexism</span> Prejudice or discrimination based on a persons sex or gender

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls. It has been linked to gender roles and stereotypes, and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another. Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. Discrimination in this context is defined as discrimination toward people based on their gender identity or their gender or sex differences. An example of this is workplace inequality. Sexism refers to violation of equal opportunities based on gender or refers to violation of equality of outcomes based on gender, also called substantive equality. Sexism may arise from social or cultural customs and norms.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dress code</span> Clothing code based on event or occasion

A dress code is a set of rules, often written, with regard to what clothing groups of people must wear. Dress codes are created out of social perceptions and norms, and vary based on purpose, circumstances, and occasions. Different societies and cultures are likely to have different dress codes, Western dress codes being a prominent example.

Employment discrimination is a form of illegal discrimination in the workplace based on legally protected characteristics. In the U.S., federal anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination by employers against employees based on age, race, gender, sex, religion, national origin, and physical or mental disability. State and local laws often protect additional characteristics such as marital status, veteran status and caregiver/familial status. Earnings differentials or occupational differentiation—where differences in pay come from differences in qualifications or responsibilities—should not be confused with employment discrimination. Discrimination can be intended and involve disparate treatment of a group or be unintended, yet create disparate impact for a group.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories". The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Occupational inequality is the unequal treatment of people based on gender, sexuality, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religion, height, weight, accent, or ethnicity in the workplace. When researchers study trends in occupational inequality they usually focus on distribution or allocation pattern of groups across occupations, for example, the distribution of men compared to women in a certain occupation. Secondly, they focus on the link between occupation and income, for example, comparing the income of whites with blacks in the same occupation.

<i>Kathoey</i> Gender identity in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand

Kathoey or katoey, commonly translated as ladyboy in English, is a term used by some people in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand, whose identities in English may be best described as transgender women in some cases, or effeminate gay men in other cases. These people are not traditionally transgender, but are seen as a third sex. Transgender women in Thailand mostly use terms other than kathoey when referring to themselves, such as phuying. A significant number of Thai people perceive kathoey as belonging to a separate sex, including some transgender women themselves.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the issues of prescriptive sex discrimination and employer liability for sex discrimination. The employee, Ann Hopkins, sued her former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. She argued that the firm denied her partnership because she did not fit the partners' idea of what a female employee should look and act like. The employer failed to prove that it would have denied her partnership anyway, and the Court held that constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

<i>Jespersen v. Harrahs Operating Co.</i> 2002 United States legal case

Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 444 F.3d 1104 was a United States federal employment law sex discrimination case.

Labour rights in New Zealand are largely covered by both statute, particularly the Employment Relations Act 2000, and common law. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment carries out most of the day to day administrative functions surrounding labour rights and their practical application in the state.

The gender pay gap in New Zealand is the difference in the median hourly wages of men and women in New Zealand. In 2020 the gender pay gap is 9.5%. It is an economic indicator used to measure pay equality. The gender pay gap is an official statistic published annually by Stats NZ sourced from the Household Labour Force Survey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High heel policy</span> Regulation or law about the wearing of high heels

A high heel policy is a regulation or law about the wearing of high heels, which may be required or forbidden in different places and circumstances.

The legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States begins in the 1960s. Such legislation covers federal, state, municipal, and local levels, as well as military justice. It reflects broader societal attitudes which have shifted significantly over time and have impacted legislative and judicial outcomes.

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

<i>Rogers v. American Airlines</i> (1981)

Rogers v. American Airlines was a 1981 legal case decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving plaintiff Renee Rogers, a Black woman who brought charges against her employer, American Airlines, for both sex and race discrimination after she was dissuaded from wearing her hair in cornrows due to the airline's employee grooming policy. Rogers believed that this hair policy was a violation of her Title VII rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cosmetics policy</span> Regulation or law about the wearing of cosmetics

A cosmetics policy is a policy concerning the wearing of cosmetics, which may be required or forbidden in different places and circumstances. A cosmetics policy that applies to only one sex, such as a policy requiring women to wear lipstick or a policy forbidding men to wear nail polish, is considered a form of sex discrimination by some critics. Sex-specific cosmetics policies may place burdens on women workers and may also present difficulties for transgender and non-binary people. Sex-specific cosmetics policies are legal in many jurisdictions.

References

  1. "Workplace Dress Codes and Transgender and Non-Binary Employees". Human Rights Campaign . Retrieved 2024-10-16.
  2. "Sexualized and gender-specific dress codes: FAQs". Ontario Human Rights Commission . Retrieved 2024-11-16.
  3. "Who Wears the Pants? Everyone Who Wants To: Expanding Price Waterhouse Sex Stereotyping to Cover Employer-Mandated Sex Differentiated Dress and Grooming Codes in the Eighth Circuit". Nebraska Law Review . Retrieved 2024-11-16.
  4. "Article 1. Unlawful Practices, Generally [12940 - 12954]". California State Legislature . Retrieved 2024-11-16.
  5. "Made up for Make-up". Florida International University . Retrieved 2024-11-16.
  6. "CM-619 Grooming Standards". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . Retrieved 2024-11-16.
  7. "Woman Fired for Facial Hair Is Offered Job Back". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 2024-11-16.