There is no federal law governing employee dress codes. Private employers may set whatever dress guidelines they wish, as long as they do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, domestic partner status, veteran status, citizenship, genetic disposition or any other federally-protected status. Generally, a carefully drafted dress code that is applied consistently does not violate discrimination laws.
Casual Dress: Comfort or Craze?
In the past ten years, the American workplace has adopted a casual dress trend, paving the way for employee comfort, but at the same time, office distractions. In a typical casual dress code setting, clothing is still professional but tends to be less conservative. Eighty-seven percent of all companies in the U.S. have adopted “dress down” policies in which employees can wear some sort of casual clothing on designated days of the week or month. One third of companies allow casual clothing every day.
Even “Big Blue” Turned Casual
Many “old line corporate” employers have adopted this casual trend, including IBM, General Motors, BIC, PepsiCo and American Express. These companies’ policies support the same idea about casual clothing: that coming to work dressed comfortably allows freer movement, promoting greater loyalty and productivity.
Casual Dress Codes May Impact Employee Conduct
The adoption of the casual dress trend, however, has proved to exhibit adverse consequences as well. A recent law firm survey of 1,000 business managers across America show that 44 percent of managers had experienced an increase in tardiness and absenteeism since implementing a casual dress code, and 30 percent noted an increase in flirtatious behavior. Additionally, many employees have a difficult time determining appropriate business casual attire while others take advantage of vaguely drafted policies. For instance, while tanks, mini-skirts and flip-flops are popular among employees, they are often unacceptable attire in casual dress environments.
How the Courts Treat Tattoos and Body Piercings
Many corporate doors that once closed to employees’ tattoos and piercings are beginning to open as more employers embrace an increasing number of “decorated” graduates entering the workforce. According to a recent survey by an outplacement firm, more than one-third of young people now sport tattoos and other forms of body art. This does not mean that employers look favorably upon their open display. In fact, many employers are opposed to this trend. Employees in these cases have met with limited success in trying to establish a connection between their body art and a protected class, such as religion, gender or national origin.
Employer Needs Outweigh Employee Religious Accommodation Claims
In Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale, 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004), the 1st Circuit Court held that a religious accommodation constitutes an “undue hardship” and does not need to be met when it would impose more than a minimal cost upon an employer, such as lost business. Here, the court reaffirmed the employer’s legitimate business interest in maintaining a “neat, clean and professional image” by prohibiting facial or tongue jewelry. Similarly, in Riggs v. City of Fort Worth, 229 F.Supp.2d 572 (N.D. Tex. 2002), the court upheld an employer’s termination of his employee because of his tattoo, celebrating his Ku Klux Klan beliefs. The court found that the employer’s accommodation of this belief constituted an “undue hardship” because it would offend an employer’s workers and make them feel uncomfortable.
How to Keep Up Employee Appearances
For the most part, employers have wide discretion when drafting dress code policies because no federal dress code guidelines exist and the courts usually rule on the side of management. It is important for employers to carefully draft and consistently enforce their dress codes. Employers should base these policies on business-related reasons, including maintaining their organizations’ public image, promoting a productive work environment or complying with health and safety standards. Employers should also communicate the policy to current as well as new employees through handbooks or memos, and apply the policy uniformly to all employees. It is significant that employers be flexible (i.e., recognize that what is appropriate on the loading dock may not be suitable for an outside sales person). Finally, it is best to frame your policies on the conservative side — it is always easier to relax a dress code than to tighten it.