2020
- Holidays...To Pay or Not to Pay, What is Required
- EEOC Update on COVID-19
- Protection of Employee Health Information
- Civil Rights Win for LGBTQ Employees
- OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements During the COVID-19 Pandemic
- The Line Between At-Will Termination and Wrongful Termination
- Regulating Firearms in the Workplace
- Social Media Use in Hiring
2019
2018
- What Not to Wear
- Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harrassment
- Employee Surveillance & Union Formation
- A Lesson in Retaliation
- Employers May Sometimes Judge a Book By Its Cover
- Mind Your P’s and Q’s . . . and BFOQs
- Severance Agreements
- U.S. Department of Labor "Paid" Program
- Revisiting Records Retention
- Calculating the Regular Rate
- Independent Contractor or Employee?
2017
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- DRI Membership: It’s Personal
- Is Extended Leave a Reasonable Accommodation?
- Parental Leave
- Pay Disparity
- Religious accomodation in the workplace
- Equal pay and prior salary information
- I quit! How to avoid constructive discharge
- You Can't Shred Email
- Navigating Unemployment Claims
- Considering Criminal History in Pre-Employment Decisions
- Defamation Claims from Former Employees
- Mixed Motive Causation
2016
- Requesting Accomodation: Kowitz v. Trinity Health
- Antitrust Law in Human Resources
- An Evolving Standard: Joint-Employment
- What Does At-Will Employment Mean for Employers?
- Let's Talk About Wages
- THE FLSA: CHANGES ARE COMING
- Follow Up: Obesity and the ADA
- The Importance of Social Media Policies
- Is Obesity a Qualifying Disability under the ADA?
- Retaliation on the Rise: The EEOC Responds
- What Motivates You?
2015
- "But I thought ...
- Who’s expecting? And what is he expecting?
- Are You Still Doing Annual Performance Reviews?
- Who is Your Employee?
- The unpaid intern trap Part II
- “We’ve been the victim of a cyber-attack”
- So, a Hasidic Jew, a nun in a habit and a woman wearing a headscarf walk into your office?
- The unpaid intern trap
- Pregnancy in the workplace
- Let's talk about honesty.
- "Did You Know" Series - Part I
- Conducting an Internal Investigation
- What HR can look forward to in 2015!
2014
- The chokehold of workplace technology
- Does your company have trade secrets?
- North Dakota Construction Law Compendium for 2014
- Does the North Dakota baby boom affect you?
- Ban the Box? Why?
- The end of the world as we know it
- Everybody has an opinion
- Changes, Changes, Changes!
- Nick Grant presents at North Dakota Safety Council's 41st Annual Safety and Health Conference
- Email impairment: A potentially harmful condition
- Are Employers Required to Give Stressed-Out Employees Time Off?
2013
- Can you obtain a credit report when investigating employee wrongdoing?
- Can’t we just sidestep the ACA?
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part III
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part II
- Should Your Employees Telecommute?
- Proper Investigation of Employee Misconduct
- Battles in the Wellness War
- Rules are rules! Aren’t they?
- What's going on in Bismarck
- A glimpse ahead
2012
- Obesity as a disability under the ADA – reweighing the issue
- What’s next for your business under the Affordable Care Act?
- Criminal Background Checks
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 5 of 5]
- Congress Says Yes To North Slope Energy Jobs Bill
- Test Your Knowledge of Social Media Policies and Employee Discipline
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 4 of 5]
- What Every Employer Needs to Know About the NLRA
- Will the 2012 Elections Make A Difference
2011
- Where There's Smoke...
- Dress Code Etiquette: Is Casual Friday Becoming Freaky Friday
- The Next Disaster May Be Yours
- Hostile Work Environment Claims
- North Dakota Employment Law Links
- There's An App For That
- Am I a “Business Associate”? Why Should I Care?
- Do You Recognize a Cat's Paw When You See One?
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part II
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 3 of 5]
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part I
- The Economy - What HR Professionals Need To Know
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 2 of 5]
- Three New Challenges For HR Professionals
2010
Dec 17, 2018
A company’s employee dress code can say a lot about the company itself. It gives information about a company’s professionalism, its values, and its culture. Long story short—first impressions matter. Your potential clients will judge an employee, and through the employee the company, based upon the way the employee is dressed. Thus, it is apparent that companies have a vested interest in ensuring that their employees are dressed appropriately. Most companies achieve this by implementing and enforcing a dress code policy.
These policies come in many shapes and sizes. An example from one end of the spectrum comes from General Motors. The company’s CEO, Mary Barra, recently implemented a new, two-word policy: “Dress appropriately.” It is her position that she empowers her employees to define the policy, which exemplifies her trust in them and promotes a positive work culture. On the other side of the spectrum, you have companies that provide a rigid framework for the type of clothes their employees can wear. These companies may mandate a casual, business causal, or business formal dress code, provide even more explicit instructions, or even have a strict uniform.
The Legal Perspective:
An employer is generally free to enforce a dress code. However, certain limits on this ability exist.
First, when an employer seeks to regulate an employee’s appearance based on a protected category. This includes characteristics such as disability, gender, gender identification, race, and religion. Employer appearance policies should generally be neutral, adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, and consistently applied to all persons. Any dress code provision that directly impacts a protected characteristic must be job related and consistent with a business necessity.
Second, an employer should be careful to avoid restricting an employee’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act. An employer generally may not restrict an employee’s right to participate in union activity, including wearing buttons, pins, or other union insignia. An exception exists where the employer can demonstrate that the policy against such items relates to a legitimate business reason, as mentioned above. For example, where a safety issue may result with the addition of a pin or button to a uniform.
These are just two concerns. There may be other issues to consider based on particular circumstances.
The Takeaway:
Determine the dress code policy that best suits your company, whether it is a simple policy such as dress appropriately, or contains more stringent standards. Whatever policy is adopted, ensure that it is clear and specific. However, some room should be left to the discretion of the manager to account for needed accommodation. Then, if the need for accommodation does arise, a specific factual analysis should be done. Each case must be evaluated individually, with consideration to the law in the jurisdiction of the employer, and, when necessary, discussed with a knowledgeable attorney.
Our Interest in Serving You:
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at amann@ndlaw.com. We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
Disclaimers
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the December, 2018 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.
What Not to Wear
By: Allison MannA company’s employee dress code can say a lot about the company itself. It gives information about a company’s professionalism, its values, and its culture. Long story short—first impressions matter. Your potential clients will judge an employee, and through the employee the company, based upon the way the employee is dressed. Thus, it is apparent that companies have a vested interest in ensuring that their employees are dressed appropriately. Most companies achieve this by implementing and enforcing a dress code policy.
These policies come in many shapes and sizes. An example from one end of the spectrum comes from General Motors. The company’s CEO, Mary Barra, recently implemented a new, two-word policy: “Dress appropriately.” It is her position that she empowers her employees to define the policy, which exemplifies her trust in them and promotes a positive work culture. On the other side of the spectrum, you have companies that provide a rigid framework for the type of clothes their employees can wear. These companies may mandate a casual, business causal, or business formal dress code, provide even more explicit instructions, or even have a strict uniform.
The Legal Perspective:
An employer is generally free to enforce a dress code. However, certain limits on this ability exist.
First, when an employer seeks to regulate an employee’s appearance based on a protected category. This includes characteristics such as disability, gender, gender identification, race, and religion. Employer appearance policies should generally be neutral, adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, and consistently applied to all persons. Any dress code provision that directly impacts a protected characteristic must be job related and consistent with a business necessity.
Second, an employer should be careful to avoid restricting an employee’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act. An employer generally may not restrict an employee’s right to participate in union activity, including wearing buttons, pins, or other union insignia. An exception exists where the employer can demonstrate that the policy against such items relates to a legitimate business reason, as mentioned above. For example, where a safety issue may result with the addition of a pin or button to a uniform.
These are just two concerns. There may be other issues to consider based on particular circumstances.
The Takeaway:
Determine the dress code policy that best suits your company, whether it is a simple policy such as dress appropriately, or contains more stringent standards. Whatever policy is adopted, ensure that it is clear and specific. However, some room should be left to the discretion of the manager to account for needed accommodation. Then, if the need for accommodation does arise, a specific factual analysis should be done. Each case must be evaluated individually, with consideration to the law in the jurisdiction of the employer, and, when necessary, discussed with a knowledgeable attorney.
Our Interest in Serving You:
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at amann@ndlaw.com. We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
Disclaimers
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the December, 2018 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.