A flight attendant tried to sue her airline after a manager explained that her hairstyle did not comply with its uniform policy. In separate case, a civil servant became the subject of debate for wearing corsets, fishnet tights and risqué outfits to work. How far can employers control what employees wear?
"Cabin worker who quit her job over a row about her ‘extreme haircut’ loses £22,000 compensation bid at employment tribunal" Daily Mail, 30 July
"Transgender civil servant wearing ‘fetish gear’ sparks Whitehall row" The Telegraph, 4 August
Mark Grimley, interim HR leader, Sablons
The Jet2 case is about the employer’s brand and the presentation of employees to their customers. The DWP case is seemingly about the appropriateness of the clothes worn to work, which were perceived to be fulfilling a fetish.
I think we are conflating two issues in these examples: the issue of identity and self-expression and the discourse about sexuality and gender in the workplace. Neither impacts someone’s ability to do their role.
For most employers, there is a simple pragmatism: dress for the day you have. We are adults, after all. There are exceptions, and for good reasons, such as uniforms, safety wear and practical reasons such as scrubs in a hospital, or overalls in a garage.
If there is no good reason to do so, do we really need to tell people what to wear?
Read more: The 'Office Siren' trend: Gen Z's answer to dress codes?
Carolyn Walker, global HR director, Tenth Revolution Group
Self-expression in workplace attire is important because it’s an aspect of our personal branding. Personal branding has never been more important in the business world than it is today, and the image you project is a big part of this. It’s paramount that we support our younger colleagues to get to grips with this, and explore how they can best present themselves in a business context.
Self-expression in terms of workplace attire is also a key site of inclusion. Overly prescriptive regulations are likely to exclude or stigmatise those who come from a different cultural background.
What we’d wear for home working, or where our only meetings are virtual and with immediate colleagues, shouldn’t be the same as what we’d wear for an on-site meeting with a prospective new partner, and vice versa. Applying a common sense metric and asking: ‘Is this appropriate for this specific business context?’ is usually a solid route away from a disproportionate focus on specific items of clothing or style.
Felizitas Lichtenberg, global head of diversity and inclusion, SumUp
While businesses may want to support individualism, they are also entitled to enforce dress codes that align with their operational needs. UK employment law allows employers to set their own dress codes, provided they do not discriminate unlawfully against employees.
For instance, employers can ban ‘extreme’ hairstyles. However, if by enforcing this policy it discriminates against an employee based on any of their protected characteristics, then the policy must be justifiable by business needs, such as safety or maintaining a specific corporate image.
It’s important that employers reflect on the motivation behind certain dress code policies, and whether they are products of ingrained biases relating to gender, race or religion. In the instances of companies instilling discriminatory policies, it is crucial to speak out and challenge them, ensuring that all employees are held to the same uniform standards.
Simone Marquis, managing director, The Unmistakables
The nub of the issue here is related to rationale, transparency and equitability of enforcement. As we modernise and nuance our policies, rather than simply re-versioning and making tweaks to language, we should question our motivations. We should consider who the policy is serving and why we believe in it.
Also, rather than adopting vague, subjective language, like ‘extreme’, we should explain exactly what we mean. If this makes us quite uncomfortable and caught in the snare of our biases, we’ll be forced to question whether our policies are appropriate. If we can’t say it with pride, why are we doing it at all?
Finally, we want to know that standards are applied consistently. We know that women, in particular black and Muslim women, can face discrimination in relation to hair and religious wear. Other people can be branded as ‘cool’ or ‘interesting’.
In an age of inviting self-expression, organisations need to avoid double standards. They should be forthright about their decisions to ‘ban’.
This article was published in the September/October 2024 edition of HR magazine.
Subscribe today to have our latest articles delivered to your desk.
