South-Western - Management  
Differing Dress Code as Sex Discrimination
Topic Equal Employment Opportunity
Key Words Title VII, dress codes, disparate treatment, equal employment opportunity
BCRC InfoMark If your textbook came with a BCRC access code, click here to login on.
Click here to read the full article.
News Story

Donna Leonard, a sales manager for Rainbow Play Systems implemented a dress code that required men to purchase and wear denim shirts with the company logo on them and women to wear navy blazers over polo shirts. Leonard justified the need for the dress policy saying that women needed to “cover up their boobs” and “rear ends.” One saleswoman, Michelle Rohaly, was fired when she refused to purchase and wear a navy blazer.

Rohaly sued under Title VII and claimed that the dress code was discriminatory against women. The company argued that the dress code was not discriminatory because it required all employees to purchase specific types of clothing, and imposed financial burdens on all employees, regardless of sex.

The Washington State Court of Appeals ruled that Leonard’s sexist comments qualified as evidence that sex may have played a role in the decision to implement the dress code. The Court therefore ruled against the company, saying that the dress code policy constituted disparate treatment on the basis of sex.

Questions
1.

What led to the problem with Rainbow Play Systems’ Dress Code?

2.

Define disparate treatment and give an example of it.

3.

How did Title VII apply in this particular case?

4.

What can companies do to ensure that their dress codes are fair and fairly enforced by management?

Source “Differing Dress Code as Sex Discrimination,” Workforce Management, Nov. 6, 2006, v85 i21 p.16.
Instructor Discussion Notes Discussion Notes
These notes are restricted to qualified instructors only. Register for free!

Return to the Equal Employment Opportunity Index

©2007  South-Western.  All Rights Reserved     |