FACTS: Dress for Success, Inc., had policy requiring male salespersons wear business attire, including dress pants, button-down shirt, and a tie. The company required female salespersons to wear a smock (a light, loose garment worn for protection of clothing while working) in order for clients to identify them easily. Sharon Riddle and other female salespersons refused to wear a smock. They showed up to work wearing business attire instead, and Dress for Success suspended them. After multiple suspensions, the female associates were fired for violating Dress for Success' dress code policy. All other employment conditions, including wages, working hours, and benefits, were equal for male and female associates.
ISSUE/Question: Was the dress code discriminatory? Why or why not? How do you rule in this case?
Wearing of a special garment on duty does not violate the rights of an individual, unless it is harmful for the employees' health or affects their dignity in adverse manner. This practice is an effort to create uniformity among the employees and is by no means discriminatory, as it was worn by every employee without exception. Further, the garment was designed to protect the clothes of the employee while she was on work, thus it is in the interest of the employee to wear it for her own safety.
Keeping in view, above facts, the ruling goes in company's favour which is not liable for discrimination under any rule.
FACTS: Dress for Success, Inc., had policy requiring male salespersons wear business attire, including dress pants,...