|
Article Excerpt
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Over the years, the dress code in the workplace has become acceptably relaxed, influenced largely by the clothing industry, and in particular, the Levi Strauss Corporation (Lilly, 2003; McPherson, 1997). In late 1992, the company had an independent study conducted regarding a reported trend toward casual dress in the workplace. Levi Strauss included the results in a newsletter that was sent to approximately 65,000 human resource managers in the largest companies in the United States, followed by their "Guide to Casual Business Wear."
Many corporations believe casual attire not only enhances morale, but also improves creativity, productivity, and communication (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000; Gutierrez & Freese, 1999). Others believe that casual dress leads to an increase in employee "tardiness" and general absenteeism (Kaplan-Leiserson). In addition, they contend that relaxed dress results in relaxed attitudes and behaviors, which, in turn, result in lowered productivity (Dolbow, 2000; Goode, 2000).
Most of the research supporting both sides on the issue of casual dress has been based on anecdotal evidence, focusing almost exclusively on the impact of the employee's dress on his or her own productivity. Beyond the direct effect of the dress of the individual employee is the impact work dress has on co-workers and the working environment. The question arises as to whether dress style might constitute "sexual harassment" or contribute to what is referred to as a "hostile work environment."
The Ban on Hostility
In 1964, the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, outlawing segregation and discrimination. Title VII of the Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. The Act also allowed for the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was specifically charged with enforcing Title VII. The EEOC is empowered to investigate, mediate, and file lawsuits on behalf of employees who file a complaint of discrimination.
While Title VII deals specifically with sex or gender discrimination, in 1980, the EEOC issued the "Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex" (Guidelines) in which they clarified that sexual harassment constitutes a form of gender discrimination, violating Section 703 of Title VII (EEOC, 1980; CFR, 1980). Within the Guidelines, the EEOC defined sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature ... when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."
The EEOC has identified two types of sexual harassment: "Quid pro quo" and "hostile work environment." Quid pro quo harassment occurs when it is suggested or implied that agreeing to (or refusing) unwanted sexual conduct with a given superior, or "supervisor," is the basis for decisions that will be made regarding the employee's future employment. According to the EEOC, a supervisor is anyone with the authority to make decisions that result in "tangible" change in the employee's employment status or is in a position to direct the employee's daily work responsibilities. A tangible change is defined as a significant change in the employee's status, such as...
|
