Approved by the Ontario Human Rights Commisssion: March 2017
Available in various formats on request
Since mid-2015, many restaurant workers have raised concerns about sexualized and gender-specific dress codes affecting front-of-house staff in the restaurant sector. Current or former restaurant staff have described their experiences and concerns in the media and social media, started a petition, held events and made human rights and workplace safety complaints.[1]
Restaurant work is an important source of employment: in Ontario, restaurants employ 440,000 people, or 6.4% of the workforce, and more than one in five Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 work in the industry.[2] It is often an entry point for newcomers into the Canadian job market, and an accessible career option for many others, as most positions do not require specialized training or higher education.[3]
However, restaurant work can also be precarious, with low wages, reliance on tips and part-time hours. Women are more likely than men to hold precarious employment[4] and are more likely to experience poverty.[5] Hosts, bartenders and servers in Ontario are predominantly female, and more than one-third are young women under age 24.[6] Factors such as lack of awareness of human rights laws, age, recent immigration, uncertain employment, reliance on tips, low rates of unionization, and the prevalence of sexual harassment and sex discrimination in the restaurant industry can increase worker vulnerability.[7] This means that many employees are afraid to complain about dress codes, sexual harassment or other discrimination, and that discriminatory environments and staff complaints are often not appropriately addressed.[8] Some workers fear reprisal for raising concerns about dress codes and other sexual harassment:
“I don’t see how to enforce it without people losing their jobs.”[9]
“Employers get away with exploiting people or maintaining questionable conditions of employment because people need the jobs.”[10]
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) decided to take action on sexualized dress codes because of the systemic nature of the problem and the impacts based on Human Rights Code (Code) grounds such as age, sex, creed, gender identity and gender expression. The OHRC is also concerned that workers who object to wearing gender-specific or sexualized dress may be at greater risk of losing employment or not being hired, which may contribute to increased rates of poverty. As well, recent high-profile reports of sexual harassment and discrimination, such as allegations against media and political figures, have led to greater dialogue – in the restaurant industry and across the country – about the barriers women face in the workplace.
The OHRC welcomed the opportunity to contribute to this dialogue, and to work with restaurant associations and leading restaurant companies to reduce discrimination and problematic practices that can lead to discrimination, and make workplaces in this sector more inclusive.
[1] For example, see CBC Marketplace report: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/women-dress-codes-human-rights-1.3476964) (retrieved Feb. 21, 2017); Change.org petition “Stop sexist dress codes in restaurants” with more than 31,600 signatures (as of Feb. 21, 2017); a one-day conference (see Corey Mintz, “What went down at the Kitchen Bitches conference,” Toronto Life, Sept. 4, 2015).
[2] Restaurants Canada Infographic, “Ontario’s Restaurant Industry,” updated March 19, 2014 (retrieved Feb. 21, 2017).
[3] Interviews with restaurant industry experts.
[4] Andrea M. Noack & Leah F. Vosko, Precarious jobs in Ontario: Mapping dimensions of labour market insecurity by workers’ social location and context (2011) Commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario, available online at www.lco-cdo.org/en/vulnerable-workers-call-for-papers-noack-vosko (retrieved: Feb. 25, 2016).
[5] See, for example, Vineeth Sekharan, “Infographic: Canadian Women in Poverty” (2015) Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless Hub (retrieved: Feb. 22, 2017); and Monica Townson, “Canadian women on their own are poorest of the poor,” Sept. 8, 2009 (retrieved Feb. 22, 2017).
[6] Data from the 2011 National Household Survey indicates that almost 75% of food and beverage servers, restaurant hosts and bartenders in Ontario are women, and 36.8% are women between the ages of 15 and 24 (Statistics Canada, no date). See 2011 National Household Survey: Data Tables. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-012-X2011033. Last modified Jan. 7, 2016. Online: Statistics Canada www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=0&GK=0&GRP=0&PID=105897&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=1&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=96&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF (Retrieved: Feb. 25, 2016).
[7] OHRC, “Sexualized and gender-specific dress codes: Frequently Asked Questions” and “Backgrounder: sexual harassment and sex discrimination at work”; and interviews (anonymous), June 13 and 14, 2016.
[8] OHRC Backgrounder and interviews (Ibid.).
[9] Email to the OHRC.
[10] Interview, June 13, 2016.
Employers can have dress codes, but only if they do not violate the Code. Human rights decisions dating back to the 1980s have found that dress codes that create adverse impacts based on sex violate human rights laws. Any sex-based requirements in the dress code must be legitimately linked to the requirements of the job, or they will be discriminatory.[11]
Despite legal protections, sexualized and gender-specific dress codes appear to be common in the food service industry, particularly in table service, and can also be found in other employment and services.[12] In the restaurant sector, women have raised concerns about being required or pressured to conform to gender-based and sexualized expectations, such as being told to wear high heels, makeup, jewelry, particular hair styles, short skirts, and uncomfortable, tight or otherwise revealing clothing (see Appendix A). For example[13]:
“Not dressing up ‘enough’ in terms of hair and makeup does result in a decrease in the number of shifts you get.”
“We’ve been told if you don’t want to wear heels, you can work in the dining room [lower tips than the bar] or at another restaurant.”
The impacts of these requirements can be significant. The OHRC heard restaurant workers describe feeling physically uncomfortable, embarrassed, excluded and/or exposed because of sexualized and gender-based dress codes, including grooming and accessory requirements. Some reported feeling unsafe in the workplace. They felt the required clothing or shoes caused physical constraints, safety risks or health problems, or that they were subjected to greater levels of sexual harassment because of dress and grooming requirements. For example[14]:
“Men think it’s ok in these restaurants to hit on [female servers] and make sexual comments, and I do think it is a direct result in terms of how we are presented to them.”
“I and a lot of the girls working there have damaged feet, back pain, and chronic neck pain from wearing heels and lifting heavy plates for 8-9hr shifts.”
Twenty-two percent of Canadian workers start out in the food service industry.[15] The work environment they experience can set the tone for their employment future. Sexual and gender-related objectification, inequality, harassment and discrimination can become normalized, so some workers assume that their own inappropriate behaviours are acceptable, and others feel they must tolerate the unfair treatment, or quit. All employees should be able to work in a fair and equitable environment without discrimination or harassment, whether they eventually move on to other work, or have a long career in food service.
[11] For more information on the OHRC’s long-standing position on dress codes and legal cases, see the OHRC policy position on sexualized and gender-specific dress codes (Appendix B) and the OHRC guide, Human Rights at Work
[12] Policy position, Ibid., OHRC interviews with industry experts (anonymous) and media reports, such as Rajeev Syal, “The law must be tougher over dress code discrimination, say MPs,” The Guardian, January 25, 2017.
[13] Email to the OHRC.
[14] Email to the OHRC.
[15] Restaurants Canada, “Canada’s Restaurant Industry: Putting jobs and economic growth on the menu,” Fall 2010. Online at www.restaurantscanada.org/Portals/0/Non-Member/2013/Report_IpsosPublicOp...
Under the Code, the OHRC works to identify, prevent and eliminate discrimination, and promote and advance human rights across the province. Our goal is to create an inclusive society where everyone is valued, treated with equal dignity and respect, and takes responsibility and action, so human rights are a lived reality.
To achieve this goal, the OHRC uses its legislated powers, including policy development, public education, inquiries, applications to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), and interventions before the HRTO, other tribunals and in the courts. Establishing respectful, collaborative relationships and dialogue is central to the OHRC’s work and is key to both systemic change and fostering a culture of human rights accountability.
In recent years, there has been an increase in constructive public discourse on sexual harassment issues. In late 2015 and 2016, several people filed human rights complaints (called applications) at the HRTO, relating to sex and gender bias in restaurant dress codes for female staff. Concerns were also raised with the Ontario Ministry of Labour regarding clothing and shoe requirements.[16] The OHRC decided to use a range of its powers under the Code to help identify, address and prevent these problems through systemic changes in the industry.
In March 2016, the OHRC released its Policy position on sexualized and gender-specific dress codes (See Appendix B). OHRC policies provide guidance on applying the Code. The policies are based on case law, social science research and public consultation, are given great deference by courts and the HRTO, and are often cited in legal decisions.
On June 23, 2016, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA) wrote to the nationwide industry association, Restaurants Canada. CASHRA raised concerns about gender-specific and sexualized dress codes for restaurant workers across Canada, and expressed support for the OHRC’s actions and position on the issue.
After releasing its Policy position, the OHRC used its powers under the Code to:
[16] Information received from a restaurant.
The OHRC reached out to Restaurants Canada’s Ontario branch and the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association (ORHMA) to discuss the dress code issue and seek their help in addressing it. Over the past year, we have been pleased with the cooperation of both organizations, which have worked to raise awareness, identify and address questions and concerns from their members, and provide tools and assistance to remove dress code barriers and increase human rights compliance.
The ORHMA has[17]:
Restaurants Canada has:
[17] http://www.orhma.com/GovernmentRelations/DressCodeInformation.aspx
On July 8, 2016, the OHRC initiated a human rights inquiry into dress codes in the restaurant sector and identified restaurant companies based on the following criteria:
The OHRC wrote to the companies listed below, which represent more than 25 multi-location brands and hundreds of restaurants across Ontario, informing them about dress code concerns and obligations under the Code. The letter included a checklist of measures that they – and all restaurants – should take to make sure that their dress codes comply with the Code. The OHRC provided deadlines for the companies to provide written commitment to implement the measures, and to show compliance.
Company | Restaurant(s) |
---|---|
Cactus Restaurants Ltd. | Cactus Club Café |
Cara Operations Ltd. |
Bier Markt, East Side Mario’s, Kelsey’s, Milestones, Montana’s Prime Pubs: Fionn MacCool’s, D'Arcy McGee's, Paddy Flaherty's, Tir nan Óg The Landing Group: Baxters, Hunters, Williams, Jacksons, Harpers, Arthurs, Carters, Kellys, Taylors |
Earl’s Restaurants Ltd. | Earl’s Kitchen and Bar |
FAB Restaurant Concepts, Inc. | Against the Grain, Brazen Head, Dominion Pub and Kitchen, Foggy Dew, Murphy’s Law, Pogue Mahone, Pour House, Watermark |
Firkin Group of Pubs | 27 Ontario Firkin pubs |
Imago Restaurants |
Duke Pubs – Duke of: Devon, Kent, Richmond, Westminster, York, Somerset |
Imvescor Restaurant Group Inc. | Baton Rouge |
JOEY Restaurant Group | JOEY Restaurants |
The Keg Steakhouse and Bar | The Keg Steakhouse and Bar |
Moxie's Restaurants, LP | 24 Ontario Moxie’s Grill and Bar locations |
Pegasus Group of Companies, Inc. | Figo, Fox and Fiddle, Home of the Brave, La Carnita, Macho Radio Bar, The Miller Tavern, O'Grady's Tap & Grill, Wheat Sheaf Tavern, Palais Royale, The Grand Luxe |
Shoeless Joe’s Sports Grill | Shoeless Joe’s Sports Grill |
SIR Corp (Service Inspired Restaurants Corporation) | Canyon Creek, Duke’s Refresher Bar, Jack Astor’s, Loose Moose, REDS, Scaddabush |
Urban Dining Group, Inc. | Amsterdam Brewhouse, Gabby’s Restaurant Group, Hey Lucy |
The OHRC inquiry letter provided a checklist that was developed to help organizations make their dress codes and uniform policies consistent with the Code protections relating to sex and gender, as set out in the OHRC’s Policy position on sexualized and gender-specific dress codes. While the inquiry focused on specific companies, all Ontario restaurants – and other employers – have a legal obligation to make sure that their dress requirements comply with the Code.
All dress code/uniform policies should:
The OHRC requested that each company implement these measures in its Ontario operations and confirm compliance by December 2016 with supporting documentation, such as policies, communications, and training materials.
Overall, the response from the companies contacted was positive. Most were aware of concerns relating to sexualized and gender-specific dress codes, and several said they had already changed dress codes, or were making amendments when they received the OHRC’s letter. Over several months, the OHRC provided updates and feedback to all of the restaurants contacted, and engaged in dialogue to help organizations identify and address issues of concern.
In general, companies expressed positive views about addressing dress code, sexual harassment and gender-related issues, mentioning:
All provided documents showing they developed new policies or had amended dress code and/or grooming policies in some or all of their brands.
Overall, restaurant companies were quite engaged: they sought feedback, took part in productive discussion, and made additional changes in response to OHRC input, to ensure their dress codes are more equitable and inclusive.
Several companies, including Cara, Earls, JOEY, Moxie’s, Pegasus, Shoeless Joe’s and Urban Dining Group, provided some or most of the requested information, but have not addressed all the concerns outlined by the OHRC in its inquiry letter.
The other companies made positive amendments to policies and addressed most issues; however, some concerns remain.
Any company whose policies do not meet the measures on the checklist may be vulnerable to human rights complaints. Companies can use the resources provided by the OHRC to help them make sure that their policies do not discriminate under the Code (See Appendix D).
Some restaurant companies underscored the value of uniforms and dress codes in promoting the company brand, ensuring a professional and consistent look, distinguishing staff from patrons, and addressing health and safety-related concerns (such as non-slip footwear, reducing risk of accidents relating to jewelry, and not getting hair in food). These are all legitimate business interests, as long as the requirements do not have a discriminatory Code-related impact.
Some companies with multiple restaurant brands noted that one or more of their brands already had dress codes that were essentially the same for all staff. However, some of these companies still identified opportunities to update policies to make them more inclusive.
A few companies stated that they seek and incorporate staff input about dress codes. This is a positive step that can help to reduce concerns. However, different employees may have different Code-related needs, and are affected in different ways by dress code requirements. Employers must take proactive steps to make their policies as inclusive as possible and have processes for accommodation of Code-related needs, and to address complaints about the dress code.
Companies varied in degree of flexibility and staff choice in work clothing, such as:
Companies can have clothing and grooming requirements for staff to that are in line with their corporate brand and/or meet their corporate goals. Companies should be aware, however, that the more prescriptive their requirements, the more likely they are to create barriers for staff, such as:
Some of the positive and most common changes restaurant companies made to their dress code and related policies were:
Many companies identified and removed sex-specific requirements in these aspects of their dress codes:
Most companies said they developed or amended statements, policies and processes to address complaints and dress code accommodation requests. For example, many included:
Several larger companies also provided anonymous or confidential email, online or telephone hotline contacts for staff complaints.
Companies described several ways that dress code changes have been communicated to staff, such as:
Many companies described other efforts to create more equitable environments based on sex and gender, and create positive, safe and welcoming environments. For example:
Companies described many good practices and changes to policies. However, the responses also identified areas for improvement.
Despite the OHRC’s input, two restaurants still have a requirement that hair be worn down – such as “completely down” with no hair clips or accessories. Even if not worded specifically about women, this requirement is likely to disproportionately affect women, and to affect staff differently based on other Code grounds in addition to sex or gender. Companies with this requirement may be vulnerable to human rights complaints.
While an employer may reasonably expect employees to present a well-groomed appearance, employees of any gender may have different lengths or textures of hair. Hair length and style preferences may relate to sex, gender expression, race, ancestry, ethnic origin, creed (religion) or other Code grounds.
Several restaurants indicated that they request that all staff with longer hair, regardless of gender, style it so that it stays behind their shoulders, or tie it back, to avoid actual or perceived contact with food.
Some companies’ makeup and jewelry guidelines still present concerns because they imply a gendered preference in their appearance guidelines. One company told the OHRC that it doesn’t require jewelry or makeup for women, but its policy implies a preference for jewelry when it says “stylish necklaces are a great way to show fashion sense.” Another company addressed this concern by amending a statement that said that makeup is a “big part of being put together,” to clarify that those who choose to wear makeup should not overdo it.
The OHRC has stated that a range of hairstyles should be allowed and that makeup, nail polish and jewelry – traditional expectations of women – are not related to a person’s ability to perform the job. Any rule or restriction that has a different impact based on sex, gender expression or other Code grounds, and does not relate to the requirements of the position, may violate the Code.
Many companies involved in the inquiry provided policies with hair, grooming, and accessory guidelines that appear more inclusive and gender-neutral, such as:
See Appendix C for a sample gender-neutral dress code template.
There appears to be a strong tendency to maintain separate policies for female and male staff relating to grooming, accessories, shoes and clothing. While this is not inherently discriminatory, setting out separate policies can result in duplication, and can result in non-equivalent options that may be discriminatory. It can create pressure on female staff to wear traditionally feminine-gendered clothing, or on all staff to conform to gendered clothing expectations based on sex that may not reflect their own gender identity.
The examples below are of non-equivalent dress options where restaurants had separate policies for women and men in the same position:
Companies should make sure that unconscious biases and gender expectations do not shape their dress code requirements. They can achieve this by establishing gender-neutral dress code requirements/options for all staff in a position, and allow each employee to choose what is appropriate for them from the available option(s) (see Appendix C for an example).
In some cases, the order in which clothing or shoes are described or depicted, the images used, or the language of the policy implies a preference for gender-specific items.
Many companies provide images of clothing and shoe options for staff. A visual guide can be helpful, but in some cases may imply a preference for a more revealing or stereotypically feminine look for women. The clothing options depicted, and their order, matter. For example, the following approaches can imply a preference for gender-stereotypical dress:
While the OHRC has limited its inquiry to certain companies, the OHRC policy position on sexualized and gender-specific dress codes applies across Ontario. The Policy position and related OHRC tools and resources (Appendix D) are provided to help all companies identify and remove dress code barriers.
All Ontario restaurants and other organizations must make sure that their dress code policies are consistent with the Code. This is a key step to create fair and equitable work environments, and to prevent human rights violations and litigation.
We encourage restaurant employees and other workers who feel that dress code policies discriminate against them to raise the issue with their employer, if they feel they can, and to use the OHRC’s policies and other resources to self-advocate. If this is not successful or possible, they may choose to file a human rights application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and/or contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) for support in this process.
Human rights protections are comparable across Canada, and concerns about gender-specific dress codes have not been limited to any particular jurisdiction. Human rights law requires that workplaces take proactive steps to ensure that their work environments are inclusive, and allow people of all sexes and genders to work without discrimination.
Examples of gendered and/or sexualized dress code requirements or expectations that may violate the Human Rights Code:
These rules subject women to different standards and impacts than men, and may exclude staff based on creed (religion) or disability.
Some Ontario employers require female employees to dress in a sexualized or gender-specific way at work, such as expecting women to wear high heels, short skirts, tight clothing or low-cut tops. These kinds of dress codes reinforce stereotypical and sexist notions about how women should look and may violate Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
Sexualized and gender-specific dress codes are all too common in some restaurants and bars, and can be found in other services. Whether in formal policy or informal practice, they contribute to an unwelcome and discriminatory employment environment for women. Female employees may face scrutiny to make sure they are abiding by the dress code, and may experience employment-related consequences for failing to dress or wear their hair, make-up or jewelry in a particular way. Employees may feel pressured to agree to sexualized dress requirements to get a job or because they fear losing tips, shifts, or even their jobs.
Employers can have dress codes, but only if they do not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. Human rights decisions dating back to the 1980s have found that dress code requirements that create adverse impacts based on sex violate human rights laws.[18]
Employers must make sure that any uniform or dress code policy does not undermine employees’ dignity and right to fully take part in the workplace because of Code grounds, such as sex (which includes pregnancy), race, gender identity, disability, gender expression and creed (religion).[19] Dress codes may discriminate based on one or more Code grounds. They may also discriminate based on how Code grounds combine or intersect with each other. For example, a dress code that requires a woman with a mobility disability to wear a restrictive skirt, without exception, may discriminate based on the intersection between disability, sex and gender expression.
Female employees should not be expected to meet more difficult requirements than male employees, and they should not be expected to dress in a sexualized way to attract clients. An employer should be prepared to prove that any sex-based differences in the dress code are legitimately linked to the requirements of the job. Where this cannot be shown, these dress codes will be discriminatory. For example, in one human rights case, in the absence of any justification by the employer, a tribunal found that the employer’s expectation for female staff to exclusively wear skirts, while allowing male staff to wear pants was discriminatory.[20]
Sex-based dress codes undermine women’s dignity and may make them more vulnerable to sexual harassment from other staff, customers and management.[21] The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on preventing sexual and gender-based harassment identifies that certain jobs – such as massage therapy, waitressing and bartending – are also occupations where women may be subjected to unwanted sexual behaviour. Tribunals have ruled on human rights claims in which female employees experienced unwelcome sexual behaviour while they were required to comply with gender-specific dress codes.[22]
Employers have a duty under the Code to remove barriers to women’s full and equal participation in employment, take steps to prevent sexual harassment and respond to it quickly when it occurs. As part of the Government of Ontario’s 2015 action plan on sexual violence and harassment,[23] changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act strengthen employers’ obligations to prevent and respond to sexual harassment. Reviewing existing dress codes and removing discriminatory requirements may help employers meet these obligations.[24]
When setting out dress codes to meet business needs, employers should not rely on stereotypes or sexist ideas of how men or women should look. They should think about a range of clothing options. Dress code policies need to be flexible and include everyone, regardless of their sex, gender identity, race, disability, gender expression or religious faith. Employees should be able to choose from this range of options without pressure or coercion. More information about designing non-discriminatory dress codes can be found in the OHRC’s publication, Human Rights at Work.
[18] McKenna v. Local Heroes Stittsville, 2013 HRTO 1117 (CanLII) [a woman’s shifts were cut after she expressed concern about wearing a new form-fitting uniform due to her visible pregnancy];
Doherty and Meehan v. Lodger's International Ltd. (1981), 3 C.H.R.R. D/628 (N.B. Bd.Inq.) [women required to wear tuxedo-style jacket and shorts that accented their female sexuality]; Ballantyne v. Molly'N'Me Tavern (1982), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1191 (Ont. Bd. of Inq.) [woman denied employment because she would not work as a “topless waitress”]; Mottu v. MacLeod, [2004] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 68, 50 C.H.R.R. D/223 [female servers required to wear a bikini top for a beach themed event night]; Noseworthy v. Canton Restaurant (2009), 69 C.H.R.R. D/33 (N.L. Bd.Inq.) [female employees required to wear skirts and not trousers].
[19] For a discussion of dress codes and trans and gender-nonconforming individuals, see the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (OHRC) publication, Policy on preventing discrimination because of gender identity and gender expression, available at www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender-identity-and-gender-expression. For more information on dress codes as they affect people with different faiths, see the OHRC’s Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed at www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed.
[20] Noseworthy v. Canton Restaurant, supra note 1.
[21] The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United Forward Together, The Glass Floor: Sexual Harassment in the Restaurant Industry (2014) online: The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United Forward Together http://rocunited.org/pr-the-glass-floor-report/ (retrieved February 10, 2016) at 25; Kaitlyn Matulewicz, “Law and the Construction of Institutionalized Sexual Harassment in Restaurants,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 2015, Vol.30 No.3, 401-419.
[22] Noseworthy v. Canton Restaurant, supra note 1; Doherty and Meehan v. Lodger's International Ltd., supra note 1.
[23] The action plan is entitled, It’s Never OK: An Action Plan To Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment. See www.ontario.ca/document/action-plan-stop-sexual-violence-and-harassment (retrieved November 13, 2015).
[24] The changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act take effect September 8, 2016.
These are examples of gender-neutral dress code descriptions based on dress codes already in use in Ontario restaurants, including a wide range of styles and degrees of formality. Note: all positions should include a pants option.
Below each option they may wish to include, companies can set out guidelines, such as colour, source, style, fabric type and/or pattern, and how the item is to be worn (such as options to roll sleeve or pant cuffs, limitations on skirt or shorts length, any seasonal limitations on wearing the item, etc.).
Tops:
Option 1: button-up clean pressed shirt, tucked in
Option 2: untucked clean pressed dress shirt or blouse with tailored hem
Option 3: dressy top/sweater
Option 4: dress
Optional top layers:
Option 1: vest (with tucked in dress shirt)
Option 2: sport jacket or blazer
Option 3: cardigan, sweater or jacket
Bottoms:
Option 1: flat-front pants and/or jeans
Option 2: black skirt (for example, “no more than 1½ inches above the knee”)
Hosiery:
Option 1: socks
Option 2: (with skirt or dress) optional tights, stockings or socks
Tops: short or long-sleeved company brand shirts
Bottoms:
Option 1: black pants/indigo denim jeans, etc.
Option 2: black dress shorts (in summer)
Option 3: company kilt with kilt pin, with socks/hose/tights
Shoes:
Accessories:
Belts may/must be worn with pants (can specify…)
Jewelry (state it is optional)
Hair accessories (state they are optional) can specify…
Grooming:
Accommodation and complaints
The Human rights at work guide helps employers comply with human rights law and avoid discrimination in advertising, hiring, and all other aspects of employment. See in particular discussion on: