Dress codes: Discrimination isn’t fashionable

Dress codes: Discrimination isn’t fashionable

With more and more people heading back to work in person, many are rethinking what appropriate work attire really means. In some cases, employers may choose to provide a dress code with guidelines for employees to follow. However, careful thought must be given to ensuring that a dress code is compliant with human rights legislation.

Employers have the right to implement uniform policies for staff that ensure a professional image, address health and safety-related concerns, and meet their organizational goals. These are recognized as “legitimate business interests.”

While becoming less and less common, historically dress codes have set different guidelines for men and women. This included items such as skirts, makeup, and high heels as required items for women in the workplace. Although this type of practice has largely gone out of fashion, employers seeking to establish a dress code need to approach their rules with an eye to making sure that any rules around appearance do not treat anyone differently or unequally on the basis of a protected ground such as their sex, gender identity, race, or other ground protected under human rights legislation in your business’s jurisdiction.

For example, in 2013 HRTO 1117, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the employer, a sports bar, had cut a server’s shifts after she raised concerns about wearing a new form-fitting uniform due to her visible pregnancy. The Tribunal held that this was discriminatory, as management saw the applicant’s visible pregnancy as inconsistent with its efforts to capitalize on the sexualization of its staff. The employer was ordered to pay the employee $17,000 for injury to her dignity and almost $3,000 in lost wages.

Gendered dress code requirements can be discriminatory both on the basis of sex as well as gender identity, as ideas about what grooming or attire is appropriate for men vs women are inherently rooted in gender stereotypes. For trans or non-binary employees, these requirements can be especially harmful.

When applied equally, personal grooming requirements can be a helpful part of a dress code. It is important to note though, that if an employer notices an employee’s level of cleanliness or self-care is in decline, consideration should be given to whether disability is playing a role, including any mental health disabilities. Where an employer notices these changes, especially if they are accompanied by changes to performance at work, the legal duty to inquire is potentially triggered before taking any steps to discipline the employee.

Below are some helpful guidelines to keep in mind when drafting dress codes. Dress codes or uniform policies should:

  1. Allow for a range of dress and uniform options in a range of sizes for all staff, and make sure that all options are available regardless of gender.
  2. Not require any staff to wear sexualized, revealing or gender-stereotypical clothing.
  3. Not include grooming or appearance rules or expectations for women that are different than those for men, or that are sexualized or based on stereotypical ideas of female attractiveness.
  4. Not require a specific hairstyle unless it is a legitimate requirement of the job (e.g. health and safety).
Share

Related Posts

Imagen 1

Employees with disabilities – accommodation strategies (Part I)

Accommodating employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation can be a complicated task. It’s important to make sure the accommodation process goes smoothly and the employee can focus on working as efficiently as possible, but employers may not be sure about what kinds of questions to ask disabled employees in order to meet their needs.

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD

Read more
Imagen 1

Slaw: Canadian Human Rights Commission’s controversial ‘anti-hate’ policy

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recently posted a policy on its website concerning how it interprets and applies section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) when it receives an inquiry or complaint. The purpose of section 13 of the Act is to balance Canadians’ rights to equality and freedom of expression with respect to hate messages, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parliamentary record indicates that section 13 was initially included in the legislation to address activities of individuals and groups who used the telephone system to disseminate hate messages. In December 2001, parliament amended the CHRA by adding section 13(2), which makes it clear that Internet hate messages come under the jurisdiction of the commission.

Read the whole article on Slaw.ca.

Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor

Read more
Imagen 1

The new age of workplace gossip – TMI!

I’ve discussed workplace gossip here before, and what bosses can do to prevent it or at least reduce the potential harm, but there are a couple of hyper-modern developments that I didn’t get into: reality television and the Internet. These two things have created a culture of “sharing”, for lack of a better word, that encourages people at play or work to divulge the most mundane and private details of their lives to others—the kind of information that one previously might only have shared with family or best friends.

Adam Gorley

Read more