Human Resource Blog

Definition of Dress Pants

The company owner doesn’t like the pants some of the younger women are wearing to work, stating that they are not appropiate. They are what is in the stores for that age group. They may be a little tighter, a little lower on the hip, but are made of the material for dress pants. How can we say they are not appropriate?

This is a judgment call, rather than a labor law issue. However, there are some suggestions based on how other companies have handled this issue in the past.

Dress code is always a touchy issue for employers, in part because it is subjective. One employer may consider a knee-length skirt too short, while another might consider it too long.

Ultimately, an employer simply needs to set a standard and stick with it. This may involve providing feedback on a case-by-case basis.

From your description, it sounds like the young women are technically wearing “dress pants.” In other words, they are not wearing jeans, khakis, Dockers, etc. The owner simply doesn’t like the style of dress pants that they are wearing, and wants to set a dress code that prohibits them. That is his right as an employer, although it may well be annoying and time-consuming to enforce such a policy. It may even reduce employee morale and increase turnover.

The best way to approach the problem initially is to send out a memo to all employees that women’s pants which are too snug, or come down too low on the hips, are not appropriate at work. If you’d like to specify that the midriff should never be visible at work, that should be in the memo as well.

Then, when someone wears an outfit or a pair of pants that is not appropriate in this workplace, she needs to be informed of the fact. In some companies, a female supervisor or human resources manager does this one-on-one, where other employees can’t overhear. In other companies, this is done in writing via a short, private note. It’s important that the communication be tactful, but that the employee understands exactly what is wrong with the outfit.

Most of the time, that will solve the problem. In a few cases, an employee may continue to wear an inappropriate outfit. In that case, disciplinary action including verbal and written warnings, suspension and eventual termination would be warranted.

Some companies try to be very specific in the written dress code. The employer may set a policy that a woman’s midriff should not show when she is standing or raises her arms above her head, and that her back should not show when she sits or bends over. Another option would be to set a policy that women’s dress slacks should be cut no lower than the naval. Either of these might be helpful in communicating the dress code to employees.

Other companies simply state that attire should be appropriate and leave supervisors to communicate, and enforce, the standards.

However, ultimately, violations of the dress code will have to be handled individually. It’s perfectly acceptable to tell someone that his or her outfit is not appropriate in the workplace, even if there is no specific written rule forbidding it. To look at an exaggeration, you probably don’t have a specific policy that men must wear shirts to work. But, most employers would not hesitate to send a shirtless male employee home to change.

Another way to handle the problem is to consider uniforms. Companies like Cintas supply business attire in a variety of sizes. Yet another way would be to require both men and women to wear suits to work. It’s very difficult to see a young woman’s midriff if it’s covered by a suit jacket.

From a legal perspective, the important consideration is that the dress code be enforced uniformly. If “low-rider” pants are not allowed, then every employee must refrain from wearing them…even that cute, slender new girl from marketing.

The law has supported employers establishing different dress codes for men and women, within reason. However, a number of court cases maintain that an employer may be required to make exceptions to the dress code for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. It doesn’t sound like that’s the case here.