Skirts at work

[rudy]

I work for King Soopers in Boulder, CO. As I was reading the employee handbook it states that no one may wear shorts ever, however female clerks may as long as they don't go over three inches above the knee.
(Might I point out I work in the bakery which is one of the hottest departments in the whole store) Well I emailed Kroger (Our now parent company) and asked about the shorts thing. Now I did use a different name (only because as much as I wish I could believe then this magical open door policy, I don't believe a true one exists yet.). They said they would pass it on to their lawyers. Well a few weeks later I emailed back for a update and the person who replied just sent me a cookie cutter response with a copy of the dress code. Now I didn't mention in the first email that I do "crossdress" at home so I wouldn't mind do wearing a skirt at work.

Could this be legal, and I'm screwed or could this be a case of "gender steriotying" and could be viewed as discrimination?

Sorry they sent in PDF so here is the copy...
----------------
Retail Dress Policy


This section supplements the above referenced “Appearance Standards for All Associates” for retail/store associates.

Attire – Associates are expected to report to work as follows:

o Day Grocery, Grocery Night Crew, General Merchandise, Produce, Maintenance, Tele-shop Drivers



+ Company issued Name Badge
+ White Oxford Shirt (long or short sleeves) with tie or associates may purchase from the Company at the Company’s cost and wear a Company authorized Golf Shirt
+ Apron
+ Company Approved Pants (no blue jeans)



o Service, Floral, R.X. Techs, Deli, Bakery, Meat, Seafood, Courtesy Clerks and Tele-shop Clerks



+ Company issued Name Badge

+ White Oxford Shirt (long or short sleeves) with tie or associates may purchase from the Company at the Company’s cost and wear a Company authorized Golf Shirt

+ Apron (floral clerks may wear the green apron in lieu of the black apron)

+ Tie
+ Company Approved Pants
+ Production Bakery associates only permitted to wear white pants in lieu of the tan or black pants



o Deli, Bakery, Meat Seafood – In addition to the above guidelines for service, floral, etc. associates; these departments are required to wear a City Market and King Soopers Baseball-style hat, Gatsby hat or hair net that effectively keeps the hair under control.



o Pharmacist



+ Company issued Name Badges
+ Professional attire or smock, no denim





+ Management – All Management Associates will wear:



+ Company issued Name Badge
+ White Oxford Shirt (long or short sleeve)
+ Tie
+ Company Approved Pants
+ Black Vest (Meat and Seafood Managers will wear black vest while on sales floor)
+ City Market or King Soopers baseball-style cap or Gatsby hat in the appropriate department
+ Service Department Manager will dress in professional attire with a black vest
+ Head Clerks will wear either the service department uniform or professional attire; either choice will include black vests. No denim or Tennis Shoes.



Pants – Black or Khaki dress type pants of dress wool, cotton or knit materials only. Black or tan non-faded denim pants in good condition. Dockers’ type pants are also acceptable. All styles of pants must fit around the waist (no bagging or sagging).

Sweaters – Only Black or Navy cardigan style sweaters or sweater vests are permitted. Sweatshirts are not permitted except those with the City Market or King Soopers logo. The associate may purchase these from the store secretary (allow time for ordering). T-shirts, undershirts and under garments with color, designs or logos are not permitted.

Shoes – Must be white or black athletic shoes only with white or black corresponding laces; neat dress shoes are also acceptable. Shoes must have closed toe and heals with non-skid soles. Socks or nylon hose must be worn with shoes.

The following types of shoes are not considered to be safe, or appropriate, and are not acceptable to be worn while on duty:

o Open-toe or open heal shoes
o Sandals or slippers
o Hard-sole or slick sole shoes
o Canvas-type shoes
o Extremely high heeled, or platform, shoes
o Western (cowboy) boots with leather soles/heels
o Leather sole footwear
o Shoes with holes in the sole or otherwise worn out
o Shoes with laces or fasteners, which are untied or loose.
o Footwear that has a heel, or sole, with exposed springs as support, such as coil spring heels, Z-Coil shoes, etc.



Shirts – All styles of shirts must be tucked in. In addition, Oxford shirts must be fitted and fully buttoned with a tie that is professionally tied and cinched up tight to the collar.

Skorts and Skirts (King Soopers Only) – Female clerks may wear skorts or skirts that fit the following guidelines: no cuff, non-form fitting, no back pockets, and are no shorter than 3 inches above the knee.

Aprons, Vests and Tunics – Aprons must be worn as designed, not folded down. Vests and tunics must be buttoned.

Ties, Aprons and Name Badges – The Company will provide (1) necktie, (2) aprons, (1) name badge, and (1) hat in appropriate depts. The Company, when worn out or damaged as a result of normal wear and tear, will replace these items. The associate must return worn and damaged items before replacement will be issued. Associates are required to wear these items while at work and will be required to replace at their cost lost ties, aprons, name badges and hats.

Thanks for reading!!!

[skirts4me]

I have the advantage of having worn skirts at work for the last five plus years.

I note that you have a quite specific dress code (some might say too specific). You could well find yourself in hot water (in addition to hot other things you'd find in a bakery) if you were to wear a skirt without first having it approved - EVEN THOUGH THE CODE IS CLEARLY DISCRIMINATORY ON THE GROUND OF GENDER ONLY. If you have a leader (rather than a boss) in the management team I'd suggest having a quiet word with him/her and have with you an example of the type of skirt you would propose wearing.

I'm also rather concerned about the idea of people in a bakery being expected to wear ties! That is dangerous and totally impractical. It seems to stand in stark contrast with the safety aspects of not wearing certain footwear.

[rudy]

Well the tie issue is not. As a baker we just bake off frozen stuff. In fact we don't even have to wear the button up shirts, we just wear the company issued burlap sack smelling polo shirts.

Yes, I would agree with you. I haven't worn one to work just to stay clear, being I've only been there 3 months.
My plan is to try to fight this.

Here's my view on this. Even if they where worried about image, I stay in the back of the bakery. I rarely if ever talk much less see customers, and the it shouldn't be a safety issue ether. Besides, its Boulder. Need I say anything else?

[BrotherTailor]

Hi Rudy.

I think you have ridiculously tight dress codes to suffer under. Is it the military?
I too work for a company that has a few "unwritten" rules based on tradition and such like. For instance it is not aproved to wear shorts while working,(we work out of our own homes in our vehicles travelling to clients farms to provide our services). Standard attire is full coveralls or company issue bib style overalls (denim) and tall black rubber over boots worn over some comfy footwear (like a large animal vet would wear - same idea as to what I do) with a company logo ball cap.
I'm going to challenge this in the form of just wearing a kilt like skirt to work for a day and see if any customers complain (this will have to wait for warm weather now). I've designed a few trial garments that would serve.

I think you could point out the unfairness of the reg's - permitting women to wear a conservative full skirt while not permitting men - and see if you can persuade the powers that be to lighten up. Would they chase a customer out of the store if a man came in wearing his kilt? (or a lady came in wearing a business suit...?)

[crfriend]

... and I say that because I've seen (and worked under) worse.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.

The dress code quoted above, with the exception of the King Soopers, is surprisingly even-handed. It covers both sexes (and I'll use that term because the casual observer cannot necessarily determine "gender" (if "gender is what's between the ears") easily) equally by putting everybody into tr*users -- it's really a "casual uniform" look that the company wants to present to its buying public; only in the King Soopers case is a distinction made between "male" and "female" attire, and that may be a cultural facet that's a holdover from an acquisition.

Rationally applied, dress codes are not inherently evil; they can be equalisers in many ways, which is one reason that schools are increasingly trying to institute them. Usually for schools, the spectre of "gangs" is invoked, but there is also the distraction of excess for excess' sake (the rich kid playing domination roles by virtue of dress or those "rebelling against something" (been there, done that)).

The code for the chain above has several useful aims: it's used to "level the playing field" so employees aren't "competing" via fashion statements, it's used denote rank within the employee hierarchy and make it easy for customers to spot managers, which really isn't all that bad of an idea, and it produces a unified image to the customer. These are all, I think, good ideas. Ergo, I think the policy is fair and rational.

The look is also casual enough that the clothes are affordable; this has two ramifications: one is to cost-shift the uniform to the employee (a bad point, admittedly, but at least the garments aren't single-purpose); the other is to keep competition to a minimum (the peon with the ill-fitting, off-the-peg, hundred-dollar suit versus the top dogs in their thousand-dollar rigs) and that's, I feel, a good point.

Do I necessarily long for a return to "office business attire" with all its attendant rules and inequalities? Hell, no! (Been there, done that, too.) What I do mourn, however, is the loss of professional image that being decently attired presents. Showing up for work in pyjamas or beach attire (I see that, believe it or not) looks just plain sloppy, and no matter how hard one may try to reject the "appearance affects performance" fallacy it's really hard to do so. Can a professional image be presented by a man in a skirt? I think so. Am I willing to try that theory out on my own career with bosses who have narrow minds? No way; that's what my off-hours are for.

[Bob]

Hey, I worked for the industry with the most stringent dress code that cannot be questioned: dance and theater. You wear the costume you're given to wear, end of discussion.

[sapphire]

Generally when you take a job in a business that has a dress code, your acceptance of the job also includes an acceptance of the dress code.

Exceptions to the dress code can be argued in terms of safety (OSHA) or reasonable accomodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

To argue for the right to wear a skirt to your job would be something for the ACLU to take up. Unfortunately, I do not think that the ACLU is ready at this point to take up that cause.

[Pythos]

Dress codes stink.

If men are limited to pants, then so should the women be.

The idea of schools going over to uniforms is quite tragic to me. It is a way of killing off the individual before they can even shine, or experiment. The bullies that pick on a kid because of his or her inexpensive clothing are the ones that need to be dealt with. This is just another way for the schools to dodge their responsibility of teaching kids the stuff necessary for life.

This particular dress code is disturbing. The reason being, have you all not noticed people are generally spending more and more time at work, or in some way comited to work. Not only is this cutting into what few moments we have with family, but also stomps on our personal appearance. I know too many people who basically stay in items of their work clothes due to the time constraints they are under.

Looking profesional is one thing, stomping out any individuality is quite another. We are human beings, no god damned automitons, I just we would get this through our skulls before it is too late.

[crfriend]

Dress codes stink.

I have no problem with that observation.

If men are limited to pants, then so should the women be.

Save for the "grandfathered" rules in the dress code mentioned above that's precisely what the code specifies -- pants for both sexes -- prefectly equal, if mind-numbingly bland.

This particular dress code is disturbing. The reason being, have you all not noticed people are generally spending more and more time at work, or in some way comited to work. Not only is this cutting into what few moments we have with family, but also stomps on our personal appearance. I know too many people who basically stay in items of their work clothes due to the time constraints they are under.

That's part of the price in "winning the race to the bottom". At no time since the Second World War has the average US citizen had less time for leisure (i.e. "off the clock") activity -- and that's just for what the statisticians count. For instance, every five weeks I have to carry a pager on my body 24x7 -- and react to it (and have that measured, observed, and judged by my superiors) -- within 15 minutes. Needless to say, that pretty much buggers everything else in my life for that week. But, I do this (read, put up with that sort of human abuse) because I need the money that the job pays.

Looking profesional is one thing, stomping out any individuality is quite another. We are human beings, no god damned automitons, I just we would get this through our skulls before it is too late.

The choice is there for the chap who made the original post: If he finds the dress code so unpalatable that he can't deal with it he can find another situation. Individuality tends to come out anyway, even if one is wearing a uniform.

[Departed Member]

The idea of schools going over to uniforms is quite tragic to me. It is a way of killing off the individual before they can even shine, or experiment. The bullies that pick on a kid because of his or her inexpensive clothing are the ones that need to be dealt with. This is just another way for the schools to dodge their responsibility of teaching kids the stuff necessary for life.

Until recently, most UK (secondary, 11-16yrs) schoolkids wore uniforms and were generally pleased to do so. Whilst some no longer do so, there is an increasing trend amongst primary schools to 'encourage' uniforms. It in no way restricts those with ability to succeed - the opposite is true. A higher percentage of juvenile social problems occur where school uniforms are not worn/do not exist. It was like that forty years ago, and I've seen nothing to change that state of affairs. A number of Scottish (and some English!) schools specified Kilts for the lads as part of their uniform (lucky little s*ds!). At least one Edinburgh primary school is thinking of introducing Kilts as part of its uniform policy - because the lads (and they're not all Scottish!) want it. Good luck to 'em!

[BrotherTailor]

Over here the private schools have uniforms...little kilt skirts w/knee high hose and a white top (and maybe a tie - go figure) for the girls. boys get blue geeky trousers and a polo shirt or white shirt and tie. No public schools have uniforms. It is something to see a half a dozen girls in a kilt miniskirt at thirty below zero waiting for the bus...

[crfriend]

It is something to see a half a dozen girls in a kilt miniskirt at thirty below zero waiting for the bus...

Whilst it may be "cute" (depending on your definition of "cute"), that sort of notion is just plain bloody NUTS! Making matters worse, it's nuts on a whole bunch of levels: nevermind frostbite and nevermind the double-standard (that boys' legs can be (somewhat) warm and the girls' legs left freezing) -- it smacks of some old fart's fantasy of "little girls" (and I'll let imaginations run rampant on that thought).

This is the sort of thing that turns girls (who tend to become women, after all) against skirted garments. It's the sort of thing that's tinged with power and dominance, rather than humanity and compassion. If I was one of those girls' fathers, I'd be having it out with the headmaster and the board of trustees -- and decorum be damned! Face it. It's just plain wrong.

[BrotherTailor]

It is nuts crfriend. I didn't say I'm personally advocating it. You'll have to take the matter up with the trustees/principal/parent council at the two private secondary schools. Fortunately I've seen the girls with those wooly leg warmers and the school buses do run to a tight schedule and I doubt they are out in the cold standing for more than 5-10 minutes. It's either that or provide changing facilities at school and have several hundred girls swap outfits at once...somehow I don't see that working logistically.
And it's not 30 below every day...maybe 10 days in the winter. Much of our winter is a slushy grimy hovering near zero or slightly below. more damp than anything.

The girls who really want to stay warm and be "uncool" wear long coats that cover their legs to below the knee. But as girls tend to do, those are few compared to the brave ones who only wear the school sweater. Tough gals. Their parents are forking out big dough to send their kids to these schools, so if the kids complain I'm pretty sure that things will start changing towards a more just and reasonable uniform policy. Otherwise they'll just send the kids to public school.

In my opinion, a mid calf length plaid skirt would be better. That way a substantial petticoat or slip could easily be worn when the weather was chilly. Combine that with nice wool stockings that reach the knee, and they are just as warm as the guys in their polyester pants... But I'm not involved with any school system...so I should keep my mouth shut.

[staticsan]

First the OT one...

It's my observation that many school-age girls will wear what looks cool over what it comfortable and warm. Even if the basic garment is acutally a uniform. The vast majority of schools have an uniform in Australia and though we have relatively mild winters, there are *still* school girls on the station platforms on cold morning with short skirts and no stockings, let alone coat.

To be fair, there are also school boys who will wear short-sleeved shirts with no jumpers in the winter, so the stupidity is not gender-specific.

Coming back on-topic...

Rudy, I don't think you've got much chance changing the policy. It's clear you have a uniform of a sorts so it's probably been thought through at some level in the past more thoroughly than most dress codes.

Wade.

[crfriend]

It is nuts crfriend. I didn't say I'm personally advocating it.

By the by, my comment was not aimed at any particular individual, I was referring to the idea. So, if any offence was taken I apologise, and assure that none was intended.

And it's not 30 below every day...maybe 10 days in the winter. Much of our winter is a slushy grimy hovering near zero or slightly below. more damp than anything.

That sounds like what we get here in New England. It usually gets nastiest in February, and we're out of the worst of it by late March.

The girls who really want to stay warm and be "uncool" wear long coats that cover their legs to below the knee.

Those would be the smart ones, likely.