...
Many employers implement dress codes to maintain and present a professional atmosphere. Some organizations need to restrict the type of clothing that can be worn for safety reasons (such as loose-fitting clothing that could be caught in machinery). However, safety is a legitimate concern for clothing restrictions, and generally doesn’t bring up the same issues as a general dress code.
The challenge is how to create a dress code policy that will allow employees flexibility in their appearance, but still allow the company to present a professional image and determine that a particular outfit is not acceptable. It may not be possible or desirable to list every type of acceptable clothing. Fortunately, concepts such as “business casual” are fairly well understood to have general guidelines. A dress code policy might therefore give examples, but refrain form listing every possible outfit.
A few examples might include:
- Dress pants and slacks, or dresses and skirts that extend below the knee, are acceptable attire. Jeans or denim pants are only allowed on casual Fridays unless the nature of the job allows for an exception.
- Business casual shirts (such as button-down shirts for men), blouses, or similar attire are required. Employees are not allowed to wear T-shirts.
- Shoes must be appropriate for the work environment. Footwear such as “flip-flop” sandals are an example of unacceptable footwear.
By providing examples, rather than attempting to list every possible outfit, the company provides guidelines but retains the right to determine that a particular type or style of clothing is not acceptable, even if the outfit is not specifically listed.
Dress codes have gotten more relaxed over the years, and some workers tend to interpret a “business casual” style of dress a little more informally than others. Employees who aren’t following the dress code aren’t necessarily opposed to it, but they simply don’t have the same understanding of it. In an effort not to completely stifle employees, a dress code might not go into great detail, and it’s sometimes necessary to correct employees when their idea of professional dress just isn’t measuring up.
Some cases are relatively simple to address. For instance, if an employee shows up wearing inappropriate clothing, or has visible tattoos, the individual might simply be reminded of the policy (a verbal warning) and told to follow the dress code in the future. In some cases, an employee might even be sent home to change clothing, although this response may depend on the circumstances. For instance, if loose clothing would pose a safety violation, sending the employee home to change may be necessary. For other situations, the case can be evaluated independently.
For the man who looks like he just rolled out of bed, it’s possible there could be more going on than meets the eye. Address it in private as a performance issue and reiterate the company’s expectations of professional attire. However, keep in mind that if this is a recent change, the employee could be suffering from depression or other problems.
Personal appearance can be a touchy subject, and individuals may take criticism personally. Employers have the right to correct employees, but be sensitive to employees’ feelings and avoid making them feel uncomfortable. However, if an employee’s manner of dress isn’t acceptable, correcting him or her promptly will help avoid problems in the future, and will also set the right example for other employees.
Unfortunately, just as such conversations can be uncomfortable for employees, they can be uncomfortable for employers. No one wants to hurt an employee’s feelings by telling her that the way she styles her hair seems disheveled and unprofessional.
For any potentially embarrassing topic, especially one that might result in discipline, it’s a good idea to correct the employee in private. Relay to the employee that the situation might be uncomfortable, but that his or her hair, dress, or even personal hygiene is not appropriate in the workplace. It’s a good idea to reinforce that the company has no intentions of embarrassing the individual, but needs him or her to help remedy the situation.
While most conversations should be conducted in private to avoid embarrassment, an exception might be if there’s a concern that correcting an employee’s mode of dress could be construed as sexual harassment. While it’s a rare case that asking an employee to observe a particular dress code would result in a bona fide harassment claim, take extra time to consider how to approach this situation, and consider having another individual (like an HR representative) in the room if there is the feeling that the issue could venture into dangerous territory. For example, if a male supervisor must address complaints about a female employee’s low-cut blouse, it may be a good idea to request the help of a female manager or HR representative.
There are some situations in which employers may not want to follow the dress code to the letter. For example, employers may be required to make exceptions as a religious accommodation. Religious expressions that may need to be accommodated might include beards, tattoos, or head scarves, for example.
Most employees who aren’t following the dress code won’t put up a fight or feel as though they’re being harassed when questioned about their dress. When possible, reference the company policy when correcting employees. If the particular issue doesn’t specifically appear in the dress code, try to explain just why the issue is problematic in the workplace and that the dress code isn’t meant to be all-encompassing. Most employees will agree to remedy the situation without much of a fuss.
Without getting too personal or asking for details, simply state that this change has been noticed, and that if there is anything going on in his personal life that is causing stress, he might want to consider using the Employee Assistance Program (if available) or seek counseling. Tell him the company is there to support him and can be accommodating if needed, but must still insist that he look professional at work.
Consistent enforcement
Inconsistent enforcement of a dress code may create liability for an employer. In one case, a female employee felt that she received an unattractive haircut, so she wore a hat to work. She was informed that this was a violation of the dress code, and was asked to remove the hat. She responded by pointing out that many men were in violation, and they often wore hats or displayed visible tattoos. She was threatened with termination if she did not remove the hat, and responded by talking to other women in the office about the unfair enforcement. These coworkers agreed and helped her document other violations by using a cell phone camera to take pictures of men in violation of the dress code. The woman was later terminated for taking unauthorized pictures.
She sued under the National Labor Relations Act, which protects the rights of employees to discuss their working conditions with coworkers, and won her case. In this situation, she also might have been successful in claiming gender discrimination. An employer would have a difficult time proving that an employee’s dress code violation that resulted in termination was justified if other (similar) violations have been ignored. This creates an assumption that the employer must have applied another reason, such as discrimination, in making its decision.