It's Spring Break (WOOOO! Par-TAY!), and so it's the season to warn women to dress appropriately, right?
Ladies, please wear one-piece bathing suits during business hours. Your cooperation is appreciated.
The Honorable Richard Kopf, a federal judge in Nebraska who blogs, got in trouble this week because he (1) blogged that he noticed and enjoyed looking at a young female lawyer who wore short skirts and low-cut blouses to court (although, he noted, she was the consummate professional), and yet at the same time he (2) blogged that women really ought to not dress in such a way that other women would call them "ignorant sl*ts."
I know, you don't believe that a federal judge would say that in print. But he did -- here it is!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs
We must be real squares here in North Carolina because I have never seen a female lawyer looking "sl*tty" in court.
In church, yes. In court, no.
I am sure that Judge Kopf meant well, and he is not the first person to try to advise women about dressing modestly during the warmer months. If women are really dressing sl*ttily or sloppily in professional settings, then they need to be told. And, yet, I cringe when I see "advice to ladies" like this. It comes across as condescending, and -- as one who never flashes more than the lower two-thirds of a leg at work (if that) -- I bristle at the fact that this "helpful advice" is always addressed to "women" in general.
With that in mind, here are some suggestions for employers (and judges!) who need to caution women employees on dressing appropriately without ticking off every professionally-dressed woman in your workplace.
*Put a general dress code into place in December, or sometime before the weather gets balmy. That way, everyone will be on notice about the rules before things get personal. Be specific about the things that you really care about. If your dress code is "business casual," explain in the policy what that means for men and what it means for women. If your dress code is "business," you might still want to specify for both sexes, "pants that aren't too tight," and for women, "a skirt no shorter than one inch above the knee," and "no visible cleavage," or something like that. Don't have too many rules or be stricter than necessary, like these guys -- if someone has a "regulation" skirt and modest blouse but the blouse is pink and she wears a tidy ponytail, maybe you can give in on that.
(Judges, you might want to consider incorporating a dress code for attorneys and paralegals in your local rules. It would fit in great in the "courtroom decorum" section.)
"Dress accordingly, boys and girls!"
*Once you have your general policy in place, consider issuing further warnings only to the offenders. Yeah, I know this can be delicate. But you single out people at work all the time (for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, of course). Treat violations of your dress code the same way.
*If you absolutely cannot stand the idea of singling anyone out, then warn everybody, and I mean everybody. Not just the women attorneys. Not just the women. Everybody. Male, female, other. One reason that women get so annoyed at these "guidelines" is that they tend to be both overinclusive (by being addressed to all women) and underinclusive (by omitting the other 49 percent of the population). You are allowed to be overinclusive, but only if you go all the way. Maybe you can even find a few things that guys are doing wrong and add that to your memo.
You've never seen a woman saggin', have you? Didn't think so, and in some places it's against the law!
*If one or two employees keep breaking the rules after you've done all of the above, then deal with them in accordance with your policy. Don't keep bothering everybody else with it. (P.S. It is not sexual harassment to tell a female employee that she needs to cover her [fill in the blank] when she's at work.)
*Offer "dress for success" help to those who need it and will accept it. Some people honestly have trouble understanding exactly how they need to dress in various work-related situations. It may be ignorance, not insubordination. In some cases, individualized guidance from a tactful, discreet, and knowledgeable source may be welcomed and appreciated.
OK, now you're set. Get on out there and party like you're a Northwestern student on a football scholarship! (Hey, kids -- did you know that spring break is only for students? Employees don't get it. At least, not unless they "spend" their vacation time. Keep that in mind.)
You might also find this recent Constangy bulletin of interest:
By Gary Wheeler, "'Potential' Qualification for FMLA Leave Doesn't Cut It, Appeals Court Says."
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010