The furore over high heels goes on.
Researchers have called for action to stop women being forced to wear high heels at work.
Academics at the University of Aberdeen who carried out a review of scientific studies into the shoes said more needs to be done to address the problem.
Actually, there is a very simple solution. All it will need is for a case to go before the courts and for Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops Ltd (1977) to be overturned. I’m mildly surprised this case law has stood for as long as it has. Public attitudes change and the matter that this case hinged on – women wearing trousers – has already faded into history. However, its driving principle; that an employer may enforce differing codes for men and women, based upon conventional stereotypes, stands providing that both codes are equally restrictive.
These days, long hair on men – the matter where I fell foul of an employer nearly two decades ago – would probably go differently than it did with Smith v Safeway (1996). Indeed, that one went as far as appeal before the employer succeeded. Those public attitudes were already changing by the time I had my run in. In my favour, however, was the little matter of folk making things up as they went along. There was no formal dress code to enforce, so they backed down. But what was noticeable was the reaction of colleagues who believed that in this day and age, surely they can’t do that. Well, yes, if they did it properly, they could have.
But, today? I would suspect that Schmidt would get overturned and a new precedent set – and that would be a good thing. Those changing attitudes are seeing a more relaxed approach to business dress. I no longer wear a suit and tie to work any more. Indeed, two of my clients have issued me with polo shirts with their company logo. Simple, smart enough and practical. None of them has ever dared to suggest that I cut my hair, though…
Ministers said existing laws are adequate to deal with discrimination following the case of receptionist Nicola Thorp, who was sent home after she refused to wear heels at work.
Quite so. We really do not need more law. Besides, I suspect that sooner or later we will see that precedent being set. High heels are another matter though as they are known to cause musculoskeletal harm. And any dress code that causes harm should be vigorously resisted. I really cannot see any modern employer making such demands given the recent backlash anyway.
Interesting. In 25 years I’ve never worked in a place where women are required to wear heels. Is it actually a thing, or are we just talking about one isolated incident?
One – or maybe a couple of isolated incidents, I suspect. Most of the places I’ve worked have been fairly relaxed.
All it takes is an isolated incident for new legislation to be spewed out though
And I have a problem with that. I agree with the government here. We already have enough law to deal with it. I would like to see the Schmidt ruling overturned, though. It’s way past its sell by date.
Eye
I take it we are all in agreement that women are too weak, vain and stupid to refuse a job where the employer requires high heels, so that government intervention is required to protect the wee, sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beasties?
But what about the ladies at my strip bar where the only clothing required or permitted is ultra high heels?
They could go barefoot 😀
It’s not their bare feet that people would be looking at, unless you had a VERY specific fetish …
In all my years working in offices I’ve only worked at one or two in the City that had the high heels rule. In a lot of other places I came across some of the female staff chose to wear heels, and were admired (Both by men and women) for their ability to wear such footwear with aplomb. Walking in heels well is a skill not easily learned.