Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[DirectorDave]

Legendary status becons for this thread.....

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

[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

[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

[c.d.]

http://thelook.today.com/_news/2011/...makeup-at-work

c.d.