Dress and appearance codes in the workplace Gender, sexuality, law and legal institutions

Citation

(2013), "Dress and appearance codes in the workplace Gender, sexuality, law and legal institutions", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 32 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi.2013.03032eaa.001

Dress and appearance codes in the workplace Gender, sexuality, law and legal institutions

Dress and appearance codes in the workplace Gender, sexuality, law and legal institutions

Article Type: From: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Volume 32, Issue 5.

Purpose – This editorial aims to introduce the papers within the special issue and outlines their contribution to the emerging and evolving study of gender, sexuality and sexual orientation in organisation and management studies.Design/methodology/approach – A review of some key themes within the literature on dress and appearance code is provided prior to drawing out key points within the submitted papers and considering how they contribute to this literature.Findings – These five papers make an important contribution to the fast-changing and evolving study of gender, sexuality and sexual orientation in organisations and the development and implementation of equality and diversity policy and practice.Originality/value – The editorial refers to papers presented at the Equality Diversity and Inclusion Conference held in Vienna, July 2010, which included a stream entitled: “Equality, Diversity, Law, Diversity Management and Legal Institutions.” The papers presented in that stream referred to the gender and sexual orientation implications and effects on women and sexual minorities in the workplace through an examination of those policies and the case law interpreting those policies. Through the exploration of these policies and legal doctrine, scholars, managers and others reflect on how those policies shape employee identities and affect management concerns and prerogatives. Scholars can also see how these policies illuminate theoretical and academic constructs around gender and sexual orientation.

Keywords: GenderSexual orientation, Dress codes, Workplace identity

Paper type Viewpoint

Law and legal institutions underlie and pervade discussions of equality and diversity both within organisations and across disciplines. Law regulates and structures the changing nature of modern society and its institutions and the ways in which we think about equality and diversity. Through the topic of dress and appearance codes in employment, this issue explores the many ways in which law influences and shapes discussions about equality within organisations and governmental and private responses to societal problems in order to better understand the emergence in, acceptance of, and reaction to these principles in workplaces and other settings. The papers in the issue adopt a critical analysis of the way workplace appearance policies affect gender and sexual orientation identity of workers, which has profound implications for the ordering of society, of business, and of legal institutions themselves.

This Special Issue presents papers organised around the theme of dress and appearance codes in employment. At first blush the topic may appear minor, however, it implicates important questions of gender and sexual orientation identity in the workplace. Those themes as well as those of professionalism and class underlie the legal decisions and management responses that judicial institutions and employers have taken in reaction to workplace challenges to these policies by women and sexual minorities.

The dress and appearance codes described in US, UK, and European cases tend to push men and women towards traditional gender presentation: men in neckties and short hair, women in dresses and makeup (Cruz, 2004; Skidmore, 1999). Those burdens on women and men are not necessarily equal in these appearance codes – either when viewed empirically or through a socially constructed lens. Forcing women to wear cosmetics is not equivalent to forcing men to refrain from wearing them, either in cost, time, effort, or burdens (Jesperson v Harrah's Operating Co, 2006, p. 1117). Moreover, negotiating workplace appearance norms for women is considerably more complex than for heterosexual men (Dellinger and Williams, 1997). Like gay men, women's choices on appropriate work dress often involves considering the impact that sexuality has on competence and professionalism (Rumens and Kerfoot, 2009; McGinley, 2007).

Valerie Cavan, Scott Lawley and Joycelyn Baker (UK) employ an ethnographic case study of gendered and sexualised workplace performances in a UK recruitment company. Their paper explores how pressures for sexualised workplace performances are exerted formally and, mainly, informally at recruitment and selection; training and monitoring; and front- and back-stage interactions.

Todd Brower (USA) also examines cases and legal doctrine, but he is focused on how the gender, professionalism and class issues in those cases can be illuminated through the lenses of sexual orientation, workplace identity, and minority sexuality theories and research. His paper is centred on the American legal experience and case law, which has had a long and complicated history of dealing with these employer policies in the courts.

Jackie Jones addresses some of the issues faced by transsexuals when negotiating the workplace. This paper tries to showcase the complexities individuals face in the workplace when transitioning. When is the right time to tell a manager? When is the workforce told, maybe trained, if at all? After transition, is it best to stay in the workplace or change jobs? The paper reveals that there are many problems still to resolve and that maybe law is not the best vehicle to solve them.

The Special Issue ends with an interview of Ms Y, a transsexual who found it very difficult to stay in the workplace after transitioning. Her frank answers to intimate questions will hopefully express to the reader just how difficult it is to be a transsexual at work and how the law does not, and perhaps cannot, deal with the nuances of all the different roles we play in a day.

About the authors

Todd Brower holds a LL.M. and a J.D. in Law from Yale and Stanford Universities. He is a Professor of Law at Western State College of Law in Fullerton, California, and the Judicial Education Director for The Charles R. Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California. His research areas are sexual orientation law, United States constitutional law and the sexual minorities in the courts. Todd Brower is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: tbrower@wsulaw.edu

Jackie Jones holds degrees in economics, European studies, law and politics from Cardiff University and is a non-practising barrister. She is Associate Professor at Bristol Law School, UWE where she researches and teaches on equality issues, including LGBT issues. She is also active in the NGO community in the UK and Europe, holding positions in various NGOs dealing with women's rights. Each year she, along with thousands of other women, attends CSW in NY in order to progress substantive equality for women.