Is this discriminatory?

Warrigal

Warrigal

SF VIP
Location
Sydney, Australia
Opinions please.

Receptionist 'sent home from PwC for not wearing high heels' Nicola Thorp says she was told to leave on her first day at City accountancy firm after refusing to wear shoes with a 2-4in heel.

Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney in east London, arrived on her first day at PwC in December in flat shoes but says she was told she had to wear shoes with a “2in to 4in heel”.

Thorp, who was employed as a temporary worker by PwC’s outsourced reception firm Portico, said she was laughed at when she said the demand was discriminatory and sent home without pay after refusing to go out and buy a pair of heels.

Portico said it set the uniform rules for staff but would review its guidelines, the BBC reported. Thorp told BBC Radio London: “I said, ‘If you can give me a reason as to why wearing flats would impair me to do my job today, then fair enough’, but they couldn’t. I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said I just won’t be able to do that in heels.”

Thorp said after speaking to friends and posting about the incident on her Facebook account she realised that other women had been in similar positions. She has since launched a petition calling for the law to be changed so companies can no longer force women to wear high heels to work. It has so far received more than 11,000 signatures.

“I was a bit scared about speaking up about it in case there was a negative backlash,” she said. “But I realised I needed to put a voice to this as it is a much bigger issue. “I don’t hold anything against the company necessarily, because they are acting within their rights as employers to have a formal dress code, and, as it stands, part of that for a woman is to wear high heels. I think dress codes should reflect society and nowadays women can be smart and wear flat shoes.

“Apart from the debilitating factor, it’s the sexism issue. I think companies shouldn’t be forcing that on their female employees.”

A Portico spokesman said: “In line with industry standard practice, we have personal appearance guidelines across many of our corporate locations. These policies ensure staff are dressed consistently and include recommendations for appropriate style of footwear for the role. “We have taken on board the comments regarding footwear and will be reviewing our guidelines in consultation with our clients and team members.”

A PwC spokesman said: “PwC outsources its front of house and reception services to a third-party supplier. We first became aware of this matter on 10 May, some five months after the issue arose. The dress code referenced in the article is not a PwC policy.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-pwc-not-wearing-high-heels-pwc-nicola-thorp
Click to expand...

Follow the link to see video of the young woman explaining her position. She is very well dressed.
 

It seems to me that if she agreed to the dress code when accepting the job, she should be obligated to follow the code during her employment. Going to work in flat shoes in such a defiant manner is not the way to deal with it, IMO. She could become proactive in negotiating with the employer by asking them to change their policy and give her reasons why. No, it's not discriminatory if there is also a dress code for men there.
 
That is ridiculous...and sexist. Are men required to wear a certain heel height as well? Ridiculous is what it is...there are zillions of flats that are conservative business approved. I limp in sneakers, I have moderately heeled dress boots that are comfortable. But forcing women to wear heels? I would definitely launch a lawsuit.
 

High heels necessary in an accountant firm? Ludicrous. Sexist. When I worked for male colleagues as a lowly student intern, I was never expected to wear heels, and I dealt with clients all day. I was the only women on the team, sometimes they were patronising, (decades ago,) but I was not expected to be decorative above all things. Old Boy Network needs a good slap.
 
Dress codes in the work place are very common place. Even McDonald's employees are required to conform. A employer has the right to maintain a certain image....even if gender specific. Sounds like this is the case, a requirement for the women that greet and escort clients to meeting rooms. A gender specific position.
If she did not agree....then find other employment.
 
work rules

fureverywhere said:
That is ridiculous...and sexist. Are men required to wear a certain heel height as well? Ridiculous is what it is...there are zillions of flats that are conservative business approved. I limp in sneakers, I have moderately heeled dress boots that are comfortable. But forcing women to wear heels? I would definitely launch a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

SB is right, if that's the dress code and she agreed to learn and follow the workplace rules she has to wear them for now. If she wants to petition against such requirements that's fine. A lot of office work places want their employees to be dressed professionally. For men that usually means a shirt, tie and jacket and a women a dress or women's business suit with dress shoes. If she works for an accounting firm and they get a lot of high income customers I'd want my employees dressed professionally as well. Yes the heel height is a little ridiculous and may be being over enforced/emphasized.

It seems like she is working for a temporary employment firm so that firm should know what individual clients want and inform their workers before they send them out.

I guess legally she has to prove every women was told to wear 2-4" heel and sent home if they didn't because unequal enforcement of policy is discrimination in itself.
 
So if a man and woman both with slight physical disability are hired the same day...he can wear the shoes he chooses...but she must conform to a heel height? No that is not a dress code, that's discrimination.
 
fureverywhere said:
So if a man and woman both with slight physical disability are hired the same day...he can wear the shoes he chooses...but she must conform to a heel height? No that is not a dress code, that's discrimination.
Click to expand...

It depends on the dress code for men. High heels have been considered dress attire for women for centuries. Not saying things don't need to change but I doubt this rule was from a workplace Napoleon. I don't know how specific the rule for men's attire is it might just say dress shoes or may say dress shoes with a description like black only for example. I've known contractors/companies not allow their employees to wear a tee shirt even with the company's name, the shirt had to have a collar with buttons even though it would be drenched in sweat and covered in dirt by day's end.

With a slight disability in the US that would fall under the ADA, American with Disabilities Act which is to prevent discrimination of the disabled.
 
But some people do need jobs and a slight disability is different from a full blown documented one. But I feel there should not be an obligation to wear a certain height of shoe...only for women. Dress code is dress code and it should sync into all genders.
 
Specifying the height of the heel rather than asking for neat court shoes or something similar reduces women to school girls who must comply with a hem height for their school uniform.

Our physical culture team required our uniforms to be 13" above the knee when kneeling for appearance sake. Trouble was I didn't have that much thigh before my knickers were on view. For adults rules should be replaced by guidelines and should be applied with common sense.
 
Dress codes are commonplace in the workplace. If a person is told the dress codes and feel they cannot comply, they need to look elsewhere for employment. This is Not discriminatory, or Sexist. When I was working, I was required to wear a suit and tie...even though some of the tasks required getting quite dirty. However, when I got into such a job, I was allowed to remove the suit jacket, and put on a pair of coveralls, or a thin smock...both of which were supplied by the company, and dig in to the dirty job....they even had rubber or latex gloves available for us to use. However, when the job was completed, I was expected to clean myself up, and put my suit jacket back on. An employer has every right to expect the employees to look professional, and maintain certain standards.
 
I guess the squeaky wheels get the grease. That company seems to have changed their policy, but did state that in the past they would have allowed flats to be worn by women who requested them. Maybe instead of signing off on the policy and then making a big stink about it, she should have just voiced her concern from the beginning and she never would have been sent home. To easy for a full-fledged feminist I guess. :rolleyes: http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/fir...policy-on-female-workers-shoes-11364060452258

nicola-thorp-facebook.jpg.838x0_q80.jpg
 
SeaBreeze said:
It seems to me that if she agreed to the dress code when accepting the job, she should be obligated to follow the code during her employment. Going to work in flat shoes in such a defiant manner is not the way to deal with it, IMO. She could become proactive in negotiating with the employer by asking them to change their policy and give her reasons why. No, it's not discriminatory if there is also a dress code for men there.
Click to expand...

I agree. Work places have had dress codes since time immemorial. If you take a job with a dress code, you are obligated to follow it -- if the woman was unwilling to follow it, she should not have accepted the job.

Two inch heels are not all that big a deal, by the way. They don't qualify as "high" heels.

I don't think you'd have an iceberg's chance proving this was discriminatory -- it's gender specific, as most clothing is, but I don't think it would qualify as legally discriminatory. Is it discriminatory to require the men to wear a tie, but not the women?

In this economic climate, I would just be glad I had a job.
 
"SB is right, if that's the dress code "

Doesn't matter what the dress code is. You can no more have a sexist dress code (in the UK) than you can have a racist one. It's illegal and immoral.

Having said that I'm a totally unreconstructed hetero male and I find a well turned ankle below a nicely taut firm calf muscle very attractive, but I defend any woman's right, including my wife's, to say to me "The hell with you, I'll wear what I like"!
 
Of course it's discriminatory............imagine the outcry if men were told their pants were to be shortened to show off their calf muscles or they could only wear short sleeved shirts so the focus would be on their biceps! Give me a break.
 
If appearance is spelled out and agreed to in a job where appearance is as important as the product or service companies have been allowed dress code mandates. Courts have ruled that cocktail waitresses can be required to maintain a certain weight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/27/borgata-babes-lawsuit-waitresses-weight_n_3664531.html

Is appearance as critical in an accounting firm-yes and no, not sexy but professional. Clients paying big money want to know all the details are taken care of. If everyone in an office dressed differently that might signal lack of control or inattention to detail by a client. Uniformity literally and figuratively is considered part of being 'professional'. Personally I would worry more about the blouse or jacket or any piercings beyond earings. Some places won't even allow men to wear a striped or colored shirt even with a jacket and tie. At the sametime many offices have gone "casual" or have "casual" Friday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top