Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[cappuccina]

The woman was working for a department store, for God's sake...the makeup rule makes sense there. Now, if she were working as a welder, then the rule would make no sense at all.

I'm sure that Harrod's also has rules for male employees vis a vis hair and nails and facial hair, as well...

[Errata]

Actually an employer can tell you what to wear, including skirts and dresses and there is nothing illegal about it. An employer has the right to dictate their dress code, and your choice is, adhere to it, or don't choose to work there.

Well, they can set a dress code. But employers who have insisted on skirts/high heels have been successfully sued for discrimination. The success coming from the argument that the same professional effect can be achieved with pants or flats. So when I say an employer cannot insist on skirts, that is a bit of an overstatement. They can. But legal precedent means that they will likely lose if they get sued.

Personally, I have never particularly minded a more professional dress code at work. I threw a fit over heels because I have a bad knee that dislocates when twisted, which happens often enough when I'm wearing heels. And I can't move quickly in them anyway. My boss's theory was that popping out a knee couldn't hurt THAT bad. I disagreed. Most of my jobs have required me being in a manufactury or repair shop with lots of fire, acid and molten metal. I get that when I'm in front I need to look professional, but when I'm in back I need to be able to move quickly, and a skirt and heels would be sheer idiocy. I'm sure some women can do it. I am not one of them. I was the first woman most of these guys had ever hired, and it simply didn't occur to them that I would have different challenges than the shopgirls. I have been lucky that once I have made my needs known and the reasons for them, most of these guys have dropped any dress code for me whatsoever.

[Ally]

I haven't been able to find any cases where a woman has successfully sued her employers for requiring makeup and a skirt. The one major lawsuit that is commonly cited, Jesperson v Harrah's went all the way through the appeals process and in the end it was determined that Harrah's has the right to dictate the hair and make-up of their employees.

[Errata]

Cough, cough. Employers can be female too. The racism/homophobic comparison? Purile.

Of course employers can be female too. I didn't suggest otherwise.

Sexism goes with racism and homophobia. I'm so sorry if you don't see it that way. And I assume you meant "puerile". Careful with those big words now.

Perhaps being secretary of State for the US entititles you to have a bit more choice than someone working behind a counter in a (albeit a very upmarket) shop?

No, I think the choice is the same. When I see pantsuits on the rack at the store, they don't have a big sign over them that says "Professional only on women who earn 175K a year". Professional attire is professional attire.

I know you might not want to believe this and it might blow your image of the "Big bad male Boss demanding his girls look like dolly birds" out the water........but I bet the makeup rule was made by a woman.

Actually I had assumed that rule was either made by or enforced by a woman. I don't have an image of some leering male boss. I'm not even saying that makeup is inappropriate to the venue. I'm saying that having different requirements for male employees and female employees is an inequality. For both males and females.

What you don't seem to understand is that this woman did NOT agree to Harrod's makeup code. She worked for a subcontractor who did not have that rule. She worked for them for four years. This woman was told to adhere to a rule that was not a condition of her employment, or be fired. So they were not trying to force her to adhere to her employment contract, they were trying to force her to do something that was not a condition of her employment. And she refused. And it doesn't matter how appropriate the request might be, if it isn't a condition of employment, then you can't threaten to fire someone for not doing it.

Not to mention it's kind of offensive for someone to tell you that you need to wear makeup when you aren't required to. I mean, someone comes up and says that to me they get an automatic "go to hell".

[Robert]

A question about the mysteries of female shopping : if a woman goes into a store to buy jewellery or clothes or perfume or whatever, would a woman rather be served by a woman with or without make-up, in trousers or a skirt, in high shoes or flat shoes? I read somewhere - can't remember where - that women don't like to buy things from women whom they judge to be their superiors.

I don't think this applies to male shoppers very much, because men decide what to get and then get it. I know that I could be served by a woman with a beard and I probably wouldn't notice - I just want to make the purchase and move on.

[cappuccina]

...you mean even if the well-coiffed, well-dressed and well-accessorized Madame Devere waited on you, you would not notice?? lmao

[tji]

I remember the time I was dragged into the boss's office because of my clothes, she wasn't happy about what I was wearing, I was showing too much ahem 'skin'......I think that takes work - I was a barmaid

Robert, I am not sure about others but I think as long as she was confident in her products and what she was selling me worked, I would not be bothered.

In all the retails shops I worked in Marks and Spencers, Matalan etc, while it wasn't part of your contract per se, you were representing the company, wore their uniform and so should look your best, and I am sorry to admit but a little make up, applied correctly helps almost everybody look better.


Tj

[Robert]

I'd need the attentions of an undertaker to make me look better.

I think I would notice if Madame Devere's whiskers got in my soup.

[babybird67]

An employer should only be allowed to expect you to attend work clean and presentable. Make-up is not necessary and should be a woman or man's choice to wear or not to wear. Sometimes I wear make-up to work, most often I don't. Does it make me do my job better? No, but then I don't deal with customers face to face. Did it ever make me do my job better when I was working face to face? No. All you need to do to make someone feel valued is to smile at them and show them you are attentive to their needs and queries, and that does not require any make-up.

An obsession with and insistence upon make-up is sadly part of our 'if it looks good it must be worth something' culture. People who serve in shops are not there to look good, they are there to make sure the customer gets good customer service and an appropriate product.

"let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come."

[Ally]

An employer should only be allowed to expect you to attend work clean and presentable. "

Define "presentable".

And why should we even limit it to clean? I mean if someone wants to be dirty and smell, that's their right! The person paying their check shouldn't get to decide how many times they have to bathe, or that they have to wear deodorant so as not to reek like a sweating pig! Deodorant costs money! It takes time to apply. Shampoo costs money! why should I have to wash my hair just because my employer has high falutin' idears about hygeine! Dirty is a natural state! Saying I need deodorant and soap is implying you can improve on my natural state! How insulting is that !

I deserve money. I shouldn't have to abide by anyone's wishes to get it! They should just give it to me, because I have the rights! They don't have no rights, I have all the rights...

Yeah.

[tji]

I'd need the attentions of an undertaker to make me look better.

Lol hopefully no time soon


I think I would notice if Madame Devere's whiskers got in my soup.[/
That would be your first reaction!!!!

Yes but whether we like it or not Bb, looking good sells, it is human nature unfortunately. How many times you stood in a queue hoping you are going to get the hunk of a man behind the till no? must be just me then damn! I am sure the men think the same.

Tj

[babybird67]

looking good is a matter of perspective though. How many women or men have you seen who look much more beautiful without make up than plastered in it?

Most men I am attracted to are probably conventionally ugly...but we all see beauty in different places.

It's like that woman in the Galaxy advert. I am sure she was chosen because someone thought she looked attractive. To me she looks like an alien!

Models should look good (whatever that means) because it's their job. Someone in HMV shouldnt be expected to be in make up as part of their job. It doesn't affect their job at all.

[Ally]

Bathing and wearing clothes aren't required to do a job either. Probably any job on the planet can technically be done naked and dirty. Being polite isn't necessarily required. Yet no one seems to have a problem deciding that employers can insist their sales people be clean and dressed and polite.

It has nothing to do with what is required to do a job. It has to do with the simple fact that the person who owns the company and pays the bills gets to decide how his or her company will be represented by the staff. They get to decide the image their company presents, not the employees. And if they want to project an image that they find presentable and attractive, that's their right.

[babybird67]

Bathing and wearing clothes aren't required to do a job either.

No but its unhygienic and would offend people not to wash and similarly it would be offensive to some people to be served in a shop by a naked person (obviously this doesnt apply to naturist resorts ). Make-up is an add on. Like jewellery and piercings.

Probably any job on the planet can technically be done naked and dirty. Being polite isn't necessarily required. Yet no one seems to have a problem deciding that employers can insist their sales people be clean and dressed and polite.

I am sure naked people would be illegal, would break some decency laws. And as i said being unclean is not attractive. People can be attractive without make-up. There is a difference, in my view. And politeness is a necessity. I wouldnt ever go back to a shop where i was served by somebody who was rude to me.

It has nothing to do with what is required to do a job. It has to do with the simple fact that the person who owns the company and pays the bills gets to decide how his or her company will be represented by the staff. They get to decide the image their company presents, not the employees. And if they want to project an image that they find presentable and attractive, that's their right.

It may be their right. It doesn't make it right.

[Ally]

No but its unhygienic and would offend people not to wash and similarly it would be offensive to some people to be served in a shop by a naked person (obviously this doesnt apply to naturist resorts ). Make-up is an add on. Like jewellery and piercings.

Who cares if you offend people? If you believe it's your god given right to smell and be naked, then shouldn't you have the right? Clothes and deodorant are just as much of add ons as make up and jewelry. There is absolutely no difference between them.

And as i said being unclean is not attractive.
People can be attractive without make-up.

That's your opinion. Your personal opinion. Some people think women without make-up is not attractive, and that's their personal opinion. And if that is the personal opinion of the person running they store, they have the right to insist that their employees present themselves attractively--by their definition, not yours.

It may be their right. It doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong either.