David Barron -  7/23/12

Conflicts over dress codes and requests for accommodation abound in an increasingly diverse workforce. Here are some legal tips diversity leaders should take into account.

What if a company’s new receptionist shows up for work wearing a headscarf? Or a male truck driver refuses to shave his beard because growing a beard is an essential part of his cultural identity?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on a number of grounds, race, religion, gender and national origin included. Each of these protected classifications can be related to the dress or appearance of an employee in the workplace. Each could also set up a confrontation that could result in litigation.Here are a few areas to look out for when drafting and evaluating an organizational dress code.Religious Clothing or Customs
One of the most common legal issues with the enforcement of dress codes is the request to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs. This may include employees wearing clothing or jewelry or maintaining a certain appearance. The employer is obligated under Title VII — not to mention most state anti-discrimination laws — to make a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs in the workplace, which would include making reasonable exceptions to applicable dress code policies. An employer is not required, however, to make an exception to its dress code policy if the exception would create an undue hardship, something that would either alter the nature of the business or affect its viability.Courts have also been willing to recognize that employers must maintain certain standards for safety or sanitation to run their businesses. If a loose article of clothing were to become caught in machinery or jewelry were to fall into food, such accommodations can lawfully be refused.But most requests for accommodation fall into gray areas involving simple appearance standards and company image. An employer’s refusal to make an exception to a dress code policy because it believes customers prefer a certain “image” — that customers would be less willing to do business with an employee who dresses or looks a certain way — have typically been rejected as unlawful stereotyping. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, settled a class-action lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch for $50 million when the company was accused of discrimination against minority sales staff, some of whom did not fit the company’s “marketing image.”