C. Personal Appearance Rules

Some companies prescribe standards in dress and personal appearance. Although such codes have been attacked at times, they are legal provided the policies do not unfairly impact a group of workers such as females. If a different rule is imposed for female employees than for male employees (such as requiring women waitresses to wear skimpy clothes while male counterparts wear whatever they wish), the policy may be discriminatory and a violation of Title VII for an adverse (disparate) impact based on sex. Also, a grooming code that severely impacts women (e.g., requiring all female employees to have short haircuts), thus having an adverse impact under Title VII, may also violate the law unless the employer can demonstrate a legitimate business necessity (such as safety considerations) to enforce the rule.

When employers prove that a dress code is reasonable and job-related, it will probably be enforceable and employers may terminate workers who refuse to follow reasonable rules. In many situations, arbitrators and judges will uphold a company's personal appearance policy when it is justifiable. Good grooming regulations are often imposed in an attempt to reflect a company's image in a highly competitive business environment. Reasonable requirements in furtherance of that policy may be legal if challenged, particularly if the company disseminated written rules advising workers of the consequences flowing from violations of such policies.

However, the law varies by state and depends on each set of facts. In one case, for example, a worker dyed her hair purple. She was given one week to change her hair color. When she rejected the boss's order, she was fired. The company was so incensed that it opposed her claim for unemployment compensation. It stated at a hearing that her job involved dealing with customers, many of whom were revolted by her unconventional hair coloring, and keeping her aboard would have resulted in loss of business. The company also believed it was misconduct and insubordination for the worker to refuse a reasonable request to change her eccentric hair style.

The worker defended her position by stating that the company had no right to dictate her personal appearance and that there was no evidence that customers complained about her purple hair. She stated that since several customers had complimented her new appearance, she was unjustifiably terminated in a manner that should not have precluded her from receiving unemployment benefits.

The court found there was no evidence that the color of the worker's hair significantly affected the employer's business or caused customer complaints. Although it stated that the company had the right to fire her as an at-will employee, it was unlawful to deny her unemployment benefits for her actions. It wrote: "We do not question the employer's right to establish a grooming code for its employees, to revise its rules in response to unanticipated situations, and to make its hiring and firing decisions in conformity with this policy. However, it is possible for an employee to have been properly discharged without having acted in a manner as would justify a denial of unemployment benefits."

Counsel Comments:While rules requiring employees to wear uniforms may be legal, such rules can violate your rights if the cost of purchasing mandatory uniforms is deducted from your pay. This may be a violation of the FLSA if your wages then drop below the minimum wage. It may also be a violation of federal and state discrimination laws if female employees are required to purchase uniforms while males are not.