London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

gctest50 wrote: »

No, it'll be in parliament at some stage :

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823

then it'll shall be known as Nicola's law and you'll get a little sticker window of yer office,

then can't have Ireland lagging behind so it'll come in here

Be great fun listening to the whining

The deadline for discussion of the petition is 9th of November, and by then it'll be a ten minute discussion. The wording of the petition makes no sense anyway:


"Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work


It's still legal in the UK for a company to require female members of staff to wear high heels at work against their will. Dress code laws should be changed so that women have the option to wear flat formal shoes at work, if they wish. Current formal work dress codes are out-dated and sexist."


How can dress codes be current, and out-dated at the same time?

Might be worth some people's time to read over this:


"Can my employer legally enforce a dress code?

An employer can legitimately tell their employees to dress in a certain way at work; indeed, there is nothing to prevent an employer from including an express term in the contract of employment outlining the dress code that employees have to observe.

Some may do so for health and safety reasons. However, even if there is no explicit reference to clothing in the contract, employees are still under an implied duty to obey their employer’s reasonable instructions regarding expected standards, including clothing and appearance. However, there should be a good reason for imposing a dress code and employers should be consistent in their approach.

If there is a specific contractual clause relating to a dress code, your employer should have drawn this to your attention and ensured that you are aware that failure to comply with the policy will be a disciplinary matter.

Does imposing a dress code amount to sex discrimination?

This depends. Employers can treat men and women differently, as long as they don’t treat one or other of the sexes less favourably. Therefore, a dress code is not required to make provisions that are identical for men and women (e.g. everyone must wear a shirt and tie), but to avoid discrimination a code must provide (in this instance) a common principle of smartness.

A dress code is also more likely to be enforceable if the employer can show that it is proportionate and necessary, having regard to the functions undertaken by the employee. For example, if the employee in question is coming into contact with the public and acting as an ambassador for the company then restrictions on his appearance and level of smartness may be justified.

Does imposing a dress code amount to religious discrimination?

A code impacting less favourably on a particular religious group is likely to amount to indirect discrimination and the employer will be required to justify it. So, for example, a dress code requiring all women to wear skirts or dresses might impact unfavourably on Muslim women who want to wear trousers. It is advisable for employers not to refuse items of dress that are dictated by race, religion or ethnic origin.

Gender reassignment

Should an employee have embarked on a course of action that will lead to gender reassignment surgery, it would be unlawful to prevent them from dressing according to their new gender.

Health and safety requirements

It is likely that employers will be able to provide reasonable justification for imposing a dress code on the basis that it is necessary for health and safety, such as hard hats on a building site. Although it is important to note that the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Religion and Belief Regulations 2003 exempt Sikhs who wear turbans on a construction site from having to wear a safety helmet.

Can employees rely on the Human Rights Act 1998?

Employers must consider their employees’ right to privacy, freedom of religion and freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998. The right to freedom of expression may include the right of an individual to express themselves by means of the way they dress. Employers may be able to argue that they have to protect their reputation, however, they will need to justify any restrictions they impose. Therefore, when an employer has no health and safety or contact with the public justification, they may wish to consider whether a dress code is really necessary."


Source: http://findlaw.co.uk/law/employment/pay_and_work_rights/can-my-employer-legally-enforce-a-dress-code.html


I can't see anything there that supports her claims about any laws being sexist either tbh as the laws apply equally to both men and women.

gctest50 wrote: »

It's ok, Nicola's law will change all that

By then Nicola won't be too bothered as she'll have landed herself a job as the office mascot with Buzzfeed, Upworthy or one of those awful UK rags targeted at women who like complain about the unfairness of it all... :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wow, did she crap in your trilby?

Not at all PP, having thought about it, I realised this is just another silly self-promoter who took a legitimate issue for women, and turned it into a complete farce for her own ends. Somewhat similar to the woman who recently tried to get the idea of "me-ternity leave" for women with no children taken seriously. It's difficult at the best of times to know are they just trolling, or are they actually genuine, because if they were genuine, there are legitimate ways to promote their causes that would have people actually take them seriously and really could make a difference for women's welfare.

I'd say the same if this were a man btw who had done exactly the same thing, that is -

Signing an employment contract that contained a specific dress code.

Reneging on that contract to make a point.

Engaging in a publicity campaign to promote themselves and smear their employer and an unrelated company instead of engaging with their employer and the other company to achieve a satisfactory resolution as would be expected of any competent professional.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The deadline for discussion of the petition is 9th of November, and by then it'll be a ten minute discussion. The wording of the petition makes no sense anyway:



Does imposing a dress code amount to sex discrimination?

This depends. Employers can treat men and women differently, as long as they don’t treat one or other of the sexes less favourably. Therefore, a dress code is not required to make provisions that are identical for men and women (e.g. everyone must wear a shirt and tie), but to avoid discrimination a code must provide (in this instance) a common principle of smartness.

A dress code is also more likely to be enforceable if the employer can show that it is proportionate and necessary, having regard to the functions undertaken by the employee. For example, if the employee in question is coming into contact with the public and acting as an ambassador for the company then restrictions on his appearance and level of smartness may be justified.


Source: http://findlaw.co.uk/law/employment/pay_and_work_rights/can-my-employer-legally-enforce-a-dress-code.html


I can't see anything there that supports her claims about any laws being sexist either tbh as the laws apply equally to both men and women.

Not trying to stir here, but purely from a legal standpoint, not sure she has much.

I mean whether you think its unfair or not is a different matter. But its in the law there. Many companies ask men to shave, that would come under this.

She's also an aspiring actress, and her claim no doubt is legitimate, but I'm always weary of these viral stories. She hardly minds the fact that its increased her profile a bit I assume?

gctest50 wrote: »

No, it'll be in parliament at some stage :

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823

then it'll shall be known as Nicola's law and you'll get a little sticker window of yer office,

then can't have Ireland lagging behind so it'll come in here

Be great fun listening to the whining

Barring a couple of notable exceptions like Hillsborough these petitions go nowhere.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can be.

Not having a beard can be painful?

Emotionally or physically?

Candie wrote: »

And the mask is off.

Ahh what mask, seriously?

I've never had any time for this sort of nonsense and you've always known that, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman.

She's no Rosa Parks, but it is an issue worth highlighting. Those 3 pages of requirements from the agency are a joke, corporate dictatorship.

If it was in another area some would be shouting Health & Safety gone mad.

K-9 wrote: »

She's no Rosa Parks, but it is an issue worth highlighting. Those 3 pages of requirements from the agency are a joke, corporate dictatorship.

If it was in another area some would be shouting Health & Safety gone mad.

I am not sure it is an issue worth highlighting!
It is as if femininism in the cushy "first world" is scraping the barrel.

K-9 wrote: »

Stupidity and corporate nanny statism is always worth fighting.

Especially if it gets the person noticed!
The bit that gets me why did she sign the contract if she did not agree with it?

ScienceNerd wrote: »

What if it was a publicity stunt and we improve women's working conditions for nothing?

I don't get how it improves women's working conditions it is the companies dress code no matter how ridiculous and she signed it!

Next there will be a campaign to abolsh all dress codes and Mick Wallace will be the poster boy

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Are ties painful to wear and do they have the potential to cause permanent damage?

I refuse to wear ties because of the danger around machinery, I know several other guys who have too.

People with long hair would have a similar risk, but usually its only men who are forced to have short hair in the workplace, probably rarer these days.

Jaysus, don't bring Mick into it.