Is having to wear a skirt and heels with bare legs acceptable and legal for a company dress code?

Welcome to Fluther!

It depends upon where you live. In the US, the guideline is to dress similar to how the clients dress.

Thanks. This is in HK.

Acceptable is a very subjective term. If you personally object to a skirt/heels dress code you may find less opportunities at this company that expects adherence to this style of dress if it all.

That said, I do believe most applicants are aware before they apply as to the “dress codes” of the company they apply to so in your case skirt and heels should not be a surprise.
The legality of such dress codes could very well be discriminatory if this company does not have similar dress standards for male employees. No…not heels and skirts for men but similar demands for male employees to have to wear certain suites and shoes.

Anyway….I did find this page that addresses this topic a bet

Hong Kong laws

In Hong Kong, although there is no provision in the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 480) (“SDO”) explicitly stating that dress and appearance codes in employment are unlawful, the EOC advises employers should avoid imposing unnecessary dress and appearance codes to avoid any direct or indirect discrimination to the employees.

Under sections 5(1)(a), 6(1) and 11(2)(c) of the SDO, it is unlawful for an employer to treat a person less favourably than another person in comparable circumstances because of one person’s sex. In other words, it may be discriminatory if the employer imposes dress code restrictions on one gender only. For example, if the employer only imposes hairstyle restrictions on male staff, it may be discriminatory; on the other hand, if a requirement on clothing only applies to female staff and no such relevant requirement is imposed on male staff, such requirement would amount to sex discrimination.

In Ms. Kwong’s case, as the school agreed to settle the matter by offering an apology and compensation to Ms. Kwong after the issuance of the writ, so far there is no precedent in ruling sexual discrimination regarding work attire by the Hong Kong courts. However, given that female teachers were subjected to a stricter dress code than male teachers, to their detriment, Ms. Kwong has been sexually discriminated by her employer pursuant to the SDO.

How to avoid sex discrimination over work attire?

While it is legal for employers to set a standard of dress in the work place, such as business attire, employers should maintain gender-neutral work place policies to avoid discrimination. The Canadian case shows that sex discrimination is a violation of human rights.

In Hong Kong, the EOC has set out practice guidelines which urge the employers should (1) strike a balance between the requirements of the particular industry, client base, business needs, as well as the employees’ personal freedom to present their own appearances; and (2) review their employees code periodically in order to take into account of changing social conventions.

Last but not least, to avoid discrimination, policies should be imposed on both sexes in an even-handed manner.

For enquiries, please contact our Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department:
E: employment@onc.hk T: (852) 2810 1212
W: www.onc.hk F: (852) 2804 6311
19th Floor, Three Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong

I’ve worked for many companies that required pantyhose with skirts. I’ve never heard of requiring bare legs. I guess they can try to require whatever they want. If it’s not challenged in a court it will stay as it is. If the dress code is considered to be an integral part of the companies branding and revenue, the dress code will likely be found to be legal.

Welcome to Fluther. Is there a certain length of skirt you are mandated to wear?
I find it hard to wear heels without hose because I usually get a blister on my foot from the shoes rubbing bare skin.

I find the “bare legs” part to be odd. I can see mandating a skirt, although I’m not sure how legal it is in the US (I know you are not in the US). I can’t see saying you must have bare legs.

I do not see the bare legs part as being any different than no visible tattoos, face jewelry, etc. If everyone is barelegged there is less legislating to do. Then the company doesn’t have to dabble into all he subcategories where they might miss one, such as no fishnet, no neon colors, no this or that prints, no metallic, etc. having no hosiery or stockings leaves everyone level and it is easy to apply.

^^no stockings doesn’t leave everyone level, because women who want to cover their legs with stockings can’t. They may want to cover veins; or look a little tan; or if their thighs are large, bare legs might be very uncomfortable. I guess if everyone at that workplace is young, and physically has no blemishes, and just overall in good condition visually, then the workplace gets away with that no pantyhose rule.

All I know is, when I moved to FL and a lot of workplaces let women have bare legs it was surprising, but it was never insisted on.

@JLeslie no stockings doesn’t leave everyone level, because women who want to cover their legs with stockings can’t.
That is a personal thing, like a guy not wanting or liking to wear a suit and tie because the buttoned dress shirt would make his jowls look fatter, it is his personal peculiarity.

Thanks everyone for the answers, I was away for the past 2 days so sorry for not answering sooner.

@Cruiser thanks for the detailed info, and yes there is a requirement for men to have formal dress i.e. suits and ties.

@JLeslie I never had any similar requirements either before…workplace is indeed quite young with most people being in their 20s / early 30s. Not everyone finds this to be such a big deal but there are several women including myself for whom this is clearly a massive change in our work dress and feeling like an intrusion in our personal freedoms..

@jca Fully agree with you, the explanation I got from our HR (who happens to be a woman so having to follow the new rule too..) is that the aim is for a uniform look so either everyone would have to wear tights or bare legs and that the majority of staff is in favor of the latter. Not at all clear to me how was this determined cause there wasn’t any poll just some informal discussions.

@Hypocrisy_Central I see your point about keeping things simple and having to regulate less but not sure i agree with it. First off not everyone is bare legged only women are so to me the dress code is not equivalent. If a man has a physical defect he can hide it in a formal suit but if a woman has less “appealing” legs she is made to show them regardless if she is embarrassed by it. Also there’s the issue of comfort, wearing heels on bare feet is uncomfortable, blemish prone and having bare feet in heels all day long could be seen as not very hygienic either none of which the men have to cope with. Also in cold weather a man’s formal suit will be a lot more comfortable than having to commute to work in a skirt and bare legs.

@chyna Thank you. Skirts have to be “business formal” i.e. slightly above the knee so not really a solution to wear longer ones (which i don’t own any off anyways).

@sophiechan If a man has a physical defect he can hide it in a formal suit but if a woman has less “appealing” legs she is made to show them regardless if she is embarrassed by it.
If he is balding but there is a certain length he has to have his hair cut and it is too short to compensate for the thinning or balding, he is in the same boat. Women can always wear skirts below the knee or even a maxi skirt.

Also there’s the issue of comfort, wearing heels on bare feet is uncomfortable, blemish prone and having bare feet in heels all day long could be seen as not very hygienic either none of which the men have to cope with.
Unless they specified a certain heel height, then a 1.5 in heel is still a heel.

Also in cold weather a man’s formal suit will be a lot more comfortable than having to commute to work in a skirt and bare legs.
First, women jackets are usually cut with more drape to them to cover more leg than a man’s coat. Second, unless she is on public transportation her exposure time from car to office is brief. When she is in the car I am sure she will have the heater on.

@Hypocrisy_Central They specify “business skirt” so i don’t think maxi will make the cut. Heel height has to be between 3 & 4 inches (unless you have a certifiable condition which i don’t). In terms of cars, that’s definitely not how one commutes in HK, it is by public transport and/or walking, I will agree we don’t get the coldest weather in the world but still it can get quite chilly in the winter months..And to me the key point here, is it wise to let companies have the power to make these type of decisions for employees rather than letting them make their own choices, after all I get to spend the majority of my awake time each day at work.

^ And to me the key point here, is it wise to let companies have the power to make these type of decisions for employees rather than letting them make their own choices, after all I get to spend the majority of my awake time each day at work.
There is the rub, it could go the other way, a woman might be working in a place of business where she has to wear a uniform that does her figure no justice, and she might feel put out because she spends good money and lots of time in the gym to be tone and curvy and no one while working will get to see the results of that hard work, of she might have a factory job requiring she put her hair in a tail, pretty much negating any serious styling from a salon unless she has short hair that doesn’t need to be kept out of the way. In any case, no one is forced to work anywhere, if anyone doesn’t like the conditions they find a place to work where the conditions better suit them. It is their business, they write the checks, so to me, they have the larger slice of the ”sway pie” than those who choose to work there and don’t run the company.

@Hypocrisy_Central Should writing the checks give companies the right to decide everything about their employees’ lives? Or is it better to have the state intervening with regulations and preventing them from doing so? Ultimately is society supposed to work for companies, or for humankind? Aren’t companies ultimately only useful to the extent they create a better life for human beings?

^ Should writing the checks give companies the right to decide everything about their employees’ lives?
That is good rhetoric, but it holds no water, the employer might sign the checks but they do not have total control over those they write the checks to. In fact, those who get the checks have way more control over themselves then their employers, even the government has more control. The bosses are not telling their workers where to eat, what to eat, how much to eat, and what to spend on what they eat, etc.

Or is it better to have the state intervening with regulations and preventing them from doing so?
The government has their fingers in all sorts of areas of business they should have hands off on.

Ultimately is society supposed to work for companies, or for humankind?
Society is supposed to benefit mankind, I would guess, but it has no obligation to companies.

Aren’t companies ultimately only useful to the extent they create a better life for human beings?
The benefit of companies reaches further than just providing Larry Lunchmeat with a better widget. If a company creates something that provides a benefit to society, it is a plus, but not the mandate.