Legally kilted

[highlandcelt]

Perhaps I should have elaborated just a little. I guess I got a little ahead of myself, and for that, I apollogise. It isn't that I take offence at people knocking me for wearing a kilt. Heck, I get teased alot. But it's all in jest. and I can take it all in stride. Hell, I joke too. However, I take offence at the people who knock and insult the Celtic peoples and my heritage. I've heard all the jokes about the Scots and the Irish etc. Jokes are jokes. But, when you deliberately insult or demean a person because of their heritage to cause pain and harm. That's when I draw the line. Again, I apollogise for any confusion because of a lack of elaboration on my part. I hope this clears things up about my previous comment.

Kilted in VA,
Matt

[Blu (Ontario)]

Most of the corporate world likes team players. That usually means wearing the team uniform. That uniform rarely includes kilts. I believe the issue is more about employee control and corporate image than it is about kilts.


.

[Bob C]

Current practice is that the company, not the employee, not the government, sets the standard for what is or is not acceptable wear; companies can and do distinguish based on gender.

Corporations often ignore the inconvenient truth that laws apply to them. Discrimination, based on gender, is illegal. Companies get away with it because people are afraid to rock the boat.

[MacWage]

Corporations often ignore the inconvenient truth that laws apply to them. Discrimination, based on gender, is illegal. Companies get away with it because people are afraid to rock the boat.

Problem-> "Rock the boat=need new job
tossed off boat and new boats reluctant to pick up a "trouble maker"

termed-> "making an uncomfortable/hostile workplace" :rolleyes:

Isn't life grand :confused:

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Wow, never expected this kind of response on this thread! Well, maybe I did, this is a core issue for many that would wear the kilt more often if not for work implications.

First Phinz, some interesting links, but neither actually made any reference to any legislation or suits decided in favor of the company in gender discrimination in the dress code and boh seemed aimed at supporting the HR organization in whatever dress code policy they wanted to enforce. I don't mean that as a slam, just an observation.

The first one is actually hits very close to home for me as I spent 12 years in Big x(whatever number it is now) consulting. And I can attest to the fact that there is an expectation (not sure if where I worked actually wrote it down as a formal policy, but they might have) to dress AT LEAST one step above the client. So if the client was business casual, we were business formal, which meant coats and ties for the men and nice skirt or pant suits for the women. If the client was a suit and tie place, we had to match and try to look sharp with nicer (i.e. more expensive) outfits. Is/was it legal? I have no clue, but that restriction is one of the reasons I celebrate my freedom to wear a kilt now. Also, that Burleson link implies that you can't do your best work if you are not dressed appropriately, to which I say BS! Making a good impression and presenting a neat appearance to the client is an appropriate requirement, but to suggest that what I wear will affect my work just does not fly, and I actually would suggest that being dressed incomfortably in a suit and tie will detract from performance.

The second link is even better, it has this to say:

Sex discrimination claims typically are not successful unless the dress policy has no basis in social customs, differentiates significantly between men and women (emphasis mine), or imposes a greater burden on women (again emphasis mine). Thus, a policy that requires female managers to wear uniforms while male managers are allowed to wear "professional dress" may be discriminatory. However, dress requirements that reflect current social norms generally are upheld, even when they affect only one sex. For example, in a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998), the court upheld an employer’s policy that required only male employees to cut their long hair.

Be aware, though, that at least one state, California, prohibits employers from implementing a dress code that does not allow women to wear pants in the workplace. According to Section 12947.5 of the California Government Code, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to prohibit an employee from wearing pants because of the sex of the employee (my emphasis again). The California law does make exceptions so employees in certain occupations can be required to wear uniforms.

I am not sure about anybody else, but it looks like the first paragraph differentiates significantly between men and women, to the man's detriment. And the second one makes a direct case for a woman to wear what was, based on social custom, a man's garment (trousers), but does not argue for the same right for a man to wear a kilt (skirt), which based on social custom is a woman's garment.


Now, I don't know the answer, but somebody pointed out that the employer determines the dress code and I agree. Bob also remarked that corporations, as employers, often have perceived powers, over their employees, that allow them to do things that would not stand up in court. Why do they get away with it, because nobody wants to lose their job! However, I respectfully submit that if you review your company's dress (or is that skirt?) code policy, and it allows women the right to wear a skirt, then you have a strong argument to allow men to wear kilts, and in reality any kind of skirt garment that exists. Will HR go for it? It depends. Certainly if you approach them fearful of your job and do not project confidence, they will recognize that they can say No and you will go away. However, if you ask respectfuly, present that you are doing it to celebrate your heritage (play that Diversity card, whether you are really celebrating your heritage or not makes no difference to me) and will wear it in a respectful and professional manner, they won't have any sound reasons to reject you, other than safety concerns as stated above that apply to both men and women.


I personally believe that no company could win a case where they prohibited the wearing of clothing by one gender and allowed it for the opposite gender. However, I do believe that most, if not all of us, are not a point in our lives where we can afford to take a tough enough stance to find out for sure. To a certain extent I got lucky. I told my manager I wanted to "push" the dress code policy and explained what I meant (wearing a kilt), then approached HR and told them I wanted to wear a kilt. After some back and forth communication, primarily clarifying that I meant every day, not just for St. Andrews day, St. Patricks, and Tartan Day, HR gave me their blessing (after I had already worn it 3 days running) (this is the short version of the link I posted previously).

[phinz]

Generally, grooming regulations and dress codes do not run afoul of Title VII if they are based upon "commonly accepted social norms" and are "reasonably related" to the employer’s business needs. source

While I appreciate the desire to call it discrimination (and for the record, I personally don't disagree, but then I'm the kid that wore eyeliner when I was a punk rawker in high school, and I made the Vice Principal prove it was against the rules. He couldn't, and I was allowed to continue wearing it, though I didn't after I made my point), the courts have upheld numerous times the employer's right to have different dress codes for each sex, in accordance with accepted business practice and "social norms." Therefore, if a company wishes to ban the wearing of a kilt by men they may, because, though we may like for the kilt to be accepted business clothing, it is not, in the eyes of most businesspeople, appropriate, and the image of the company that it projects could be seen as potentially harmful. The court will uphold that the business, as a private institution, has the right to enforce this requirement because if it does not an unnecessary burden would be placed on the company.

I have to tuck my shirt in at work. The female employees don't. My shirts that I normally don't tuck are cut with a straight hem, so as to look good and not be tucked. Females at work wear untucked shirts with tails that look like they were cut to be tucked, but that's OK according to policy. The research, done by our company's legal counsel (who, btw, fought for my right to not tuck my shirt in, as I was one of only about 3 men at the corporate offices, with 350 people on site, who didn't tuck when a shirt was cut to not be tucked), showed that the executive committee could require this disparate treatment, and the policy stuck, though he didn't like it. Is it sex discrimination in my eyes? Yes. In the courts' eyes? No. I can probably get court cases when his assistant has time, or when I remember to bring my HR research passwords home with me.

We don't allow earrings on male members of our floor staff. Female members are allowed to. The same research applied to this requirement, and believe me, a company as large as ours does their research exhaustively before writing policy.

[highlandcelt]

In a professional business atmosphere, I understand some restrictions. Especially when dealing in international business. Some cultures may not accept the kilt as proper and possibly rude, and it may or may not affect the outcome of a business "deal". However, in a non-professional job, I fail to see the problem, other than a safety issue. In non-pro jobs, ie: construction, wood, metal or any other type of production shop where safety is not a problem, I fail to see the problem of men wearing their kilt to work. As far as your employment goes, I believe it is a case of using common sense and good judgement on a case by case senario(SP?) in the situation that you will be in at the time.
When out in public, walking with your family, or friends, at a park, the museum, the zoo or a concert, shopping, the beach or what have you...it is up to you. It is your life, and you should be able to wear what you want in public without ridicule.
My motto: "You laugh, tease and poke fun at me for wearing a kilt and being "different". But, I laugh at you because you are all the same, and let OTHERS tell you how to dress and to be "NORMAL." ". Everyone laughed at Einstein, Edison, the Wright Brothers and Christopher Colombus because they were "different". Who's laughing now?

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Phinz, I think we're on the same page from a personal point of view of what we would want to happen. It sounds like your employer is much more conservative than mine, although financial institutions tend to be fairly conservative. Not sure what the response would have been if I tried to get permission to wear kilts as a teller in a branch office. Probably a whole different can of worms. However, I work at headquarters and the only people I interact with, usually, is other employees of the company. Although the first day I wore my kilt that included the CEO of our division, and the group director for North America!

If you can track down some recent cases, I would love to read some of the briefs. My sense is that most companies would not want to go to court over an HR issue along these lines, and I would also wonder if times are changing any such that the courts might rule differently as time progresses.

And this has been a great thread!

[jjoseph]

A word on behalf of "the man" a.k.a. "big brother"....

When a business hires someone, they are PAYING that person to represent the business, not himself. Whether it means donning a uniform (uni- ONE, -form SHAPE) or adhering to a code of dress or code of conduct, people are compensated (salary, benefits, et al.) in exchange for meeting an employer's need for work, time, expertise and representation.

Employees should expect fair treatment, but we have to remember when we enter someone else's employ, they have a right to expect us to represent THEIR image and conform to their standards unless those standards pose a risk or unreasonable burden. That does not make big business evil or inconsiderate; employers are simply the other interested party of an agreement and have a justifiably different set of priorities.

BUT if you can convince them to accomodate you, more power to ya!

[davedove]

A word on behalf of "the man" a.k.a. "big brother"....

When a business hires someone, they are PAYING that person to represent the business, not himself. Whether it means donning a uniform (uni- ONE, -form SHAPE) or adhering to a code of dress or code of conduct, people are compensated (salary, benefits, et al.) in exchange for meeting an employer's need for work, time, expertise and representation.

Employees should expect fair treatment, but we have to remember when we enter someone else's employ, they have a right to expect us to represent THEIR image and conform to their standards unless those standards pose a risk or unreasonable burden. That does not make big business evil or inconsiderate; employers are simply the other interested party of an agreement and have a justifiably different set of priorities.

BUT if you can convince them to accomodate you, more power to ya!

So very true. Companies are in business for their owner's interests, not the employees. The trick is to convince the managers that the wearing of a kilt is good for their interests.