Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[c.d.]

http://thelook.today.com/_news/2011/07/06/7028476-do-you-have-to-wear-makeup-at-work

c.d.

[Phil H]

With respect to the title of the thread, the lady concerned appears to have resigned, rather than been "fired". The article says:

Stark was given an ultimatum: Put on makeup or leave. She resigned.

That might change the legal position - in that she made a choice. It might have been harder for Harrod's to have given her notice.

I think BA used to have similar requirements in regard to their air hostesses - where hair, make-up and uniform were all stipulated..

On the other hand, di this lady have a valid reason for not wearing make-up: religious? medical? If she did then why did her line management chain not know. If she signed up to the dress-code etc and knew about the requirement then would that weaken her case? (I'm no lawyer.)

As she had worked for the firm for several years without apparently being censured or warned, I would think that arbitrary dismissal would have been difficult. But when told she did not want to stay - so perhaps she would have left earlier.

I see no reason why firms should not be able to insist on a dress-code: from full company uniform to insisting on a tir for men, or a suit, no jeans etc etc.

Hairstyles in the UK are also I think sometimes subject to law - for instance having to be covered in food processing or when using machinery. But could a firm refuse to employ someone with dreadlocks; or a shaven head (if so could they decline to employ someone bald and what is the difference)? Should they be able to?

Society and dress codes are changing, in my office I see more and more men - even some quite senior managers - not wearing ties unless a meeting is scheduled. Jeans and t-shirts have become routine and are not commented on by senior staff.

I once recall going to a trade exhibition and noting the difference between commercial firms and local government (public) officials. The company men looked sharp in smart suits, short hair, neatly ironed shirts, polished shoes - they embodied professionalism. The public officials were frankly scruffy in well-worn sports jackets or threadbare suits, scuffed shows and unironed shirts; their hair was also less well groomed. Now, I am sure that some of those officials were every bit as professional and intelligent as the commercial men, but I also know what the perception was.

All in all some interesting questions raised by the article - for which thanks. I look forward to reading the views of others.

Phil

[miss marple]

make up code

We are not talking about a dress code, she adhered to the dress code, but a make up code.Women were required to plaster their faces with slap including lipstick, lip gloss lip liner. There is not the same requirement for men to plaster their faces with slap to make them presentable to the public, even though they too may have a draining effect from bright lights.
Are women then 'unfit' to be been in public without make up?
She worked for HMV selling CDs,[ not cosmetics] and had been commended for her salesmanship, lack of slap did not effect her job.
This sexist and ridiculous rule is well past its sell by date.
Miss Marple

[DirectorDave]

Legendary status becons for this thread.....

If she liked her job that much she could have put on a bit of slap.

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

You are correct in that the woman resigned as opposed to being fired. However, had she not resigned she would have been fired so I suppose it is six of one and half dozen of the other.

I am not familiar with British employment law but here in the U.S. workers have very few rights. An employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all.

The woman was aware of the job requirements before she accepted the position so I can’t really see where she has any case. If the store allowed some women to go without makeup that might be a different story.

A dress code refers to an employee’s appearance and thus that would include makeup. I don’t really see where this equates with sexism. Men could argue that they are required to wear uncomfortable neckties and the women are not.

In short, I don’t see where she has a case against the store.

c.d.

[tji]

Hi all

In all fairness to Harrod's, I believe she was aware of this rule (not sure if it is in the contract) before she took the job, if she didn't want to wear makeup - she should not have taken the job. How many don't people want to wear suits or work uniforms, but they do because it is a requirement of that firm.

Tj

[miss marple]

She was working for Hmv concesssion in Harrods. HMV employees in their shops are not required to cover their faces in slap.
I have worked in London department stores such as Liberty and apart from the girls who sell cosmetics if you are neat and tidy and follow the dress code, looking a high class prostitute is not a requirement of the job.this is unique to Harrods, we are not talking a little bit of make up but the full works.This costs a lot of money and time. Men are not subject the the same rules, that is SEXIST.so why are they not obliged to wear full make up everyday too. they are not too gorgeous in their natural state.
Miss Marple

[Errata]

I always thought that any dress code should apply equally to men and women. I had a job where I was required to wear heels. I can't walk in heels. I successfully argued that it was sexist for men to have the language "dress shoes" in their dress code, and women to have "High heels" (the place I worked for got bought out and the dress code changed. Otherwise I would not have taken the job unless I had no choice)

The other factor in this is that is that of cost. My sister wears makeup. She spends about 600-800 dollars a year on makeup. I don't wear makeup. I spend maybe 8 bucks a year on makeup. And god forbid you have sensitive skin or any allergies, because that ratchets up the cost for makeup to about 2000 bucks a year. Dress flats cost 40-70 dollars. High heels cost 60-130 dollars. And you have to buy high end heels if you want to be able to stand in them all day and still be able to walk around. Men have to buy no makeup, and their dress shoes cost 40-80 dollars.

It is discrimination to demand a different standard of dress for women than for men. And I have absolutely no problem with both sexes having to wear "dress shoes". But unless men have to wear heels, they cannot demand a woman wear heels. And unless a man has to wear makeup, they cannot demand a woman wear makeup. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it surprises me that they didn't see that earlier.

[Limehouse]

She was working for Hmv concesssion in Harrods. HMV employees in their shops are not required to cover their faces in slap.
I have worked in London department stores such as Liberty and apart from the girls who sell cosmetics if you are neat and tidy and follow the dress code, looking a high class prostitute is not a requirement of the job.this is unique to Harrods, we are not talking a little bit of make up but the full works.This costs a lot of money and time. Men are not subject the the same rules, that is SEXIST.so why are they not obliged to wear full make up everyday too. they are not too gorgeous in their natural state.
Miss Marple

Bravo Miss Marple - I toally agree with every word and would like t add two points:

1. Whether it is a condition of employment or not it is an unreasonable condition.
2. She was allowed to work for four years without this requirement being enforced. It was therefore very unfair and unreasonable to suddenly expect her to comply.

Such conditions of employment belong in the past.

[c.d.]

Well I can't speak for British law but under American law she would have no case that I can think of.

We are dealing with the Golden Rule here -- Them with the gold make the rules. It might be unfair. It might be sexist. But the question is was the store within their legal rights to take the action that they did.

c.d.

[Ally]

Interesting thread on sexism and dress. Especially since apparently women who wear full make up look like "high class prostitutes". So nice to see people sticking up for women like that.

[Steadmund Brand]

Bravo Ally!!

[Steadmund Brand]

Actually, just so I'm not considered sexist..... Brava Ally!!

[Robert]

"But could a firm refuse to employ someone with dreadlocks; or a shaven head (if so could they decline to employ someone bald and what is the difference)? Should they be able to?"

The scenario to avoid is when a skinhead has "HATE" tattooed on his head while a teenager. Two or three years later he grows his hair and gets a job in an office. Twenty or so years down the line, he becomes office manager. Unfortunately his hair starts to recede....

[Ally]

In that scenario all he has to do is go to the laser guy and pay to have the letter "e" removed. Then it looks like an ironic fashion statement.