Sex Discrimination & Company Dress Codes

Your Wardrobe Shouldn’t Determine Your Career

What you wear to work shouldn’t decide how far you go in your career. It shouldn’t control whether you get that big project, the raise you’ve earned, or even the respect of your peers. Yet in many workplaces, appearance policies are used in ways that go far beyond “looking professional.” They can quietly reinforce gender stereotypes, send subtle signals about who belongs, and hold employees to unequal standards.

Our employment law attorneys have seen how damaging this can be. Dress codes aren’t just about clothes, they’re about power. They can be written to look neutral on paper but enforced in ways that place the heavier burden on one gender. Over time, that unequal pressure can chip away at career growth, confidence, and even job security.

You might think, “It’s just a dress code, how bad could it be?” But for many employees, it’s the daily stress of wondering if you’ll be singled out, the awkward conversations with managers over arbitrary rules, or the quiet sense that you’re being judged for something that has nothing to do with your abilities. That’s when it stops being about dress and starts being about discrimination.

Dress Code Rules That Disproportionately Target One Gender

Federal and state protections are clear: employers can’t impose appearance rules that single out one gender without a valid business reason. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law both prohibit these kinds of policies.

In practice, though, gender-targeted rules are still common. In some offices, women are told they “must” wear skirts, makeup, or high heels for client-facing roles, even when there’s no link between those requirements and job performance. In other environments, men may be forced to wear ties or jackets in situations where women are allowed more flexibility.

We’ve seen policies in New York workplaces that:

• Dictate hair length rules for men, while women’s hairstyles face no restrictions.
• Penalize women for wearing flats or pants in roles where men can choose comfortable footwear.
• Restrict clothing that reflects cultural or religious identity when it doesn’t match gendered style norms.

These rules don’t just affect comfort, they affect equality. When a dress code imposes extra costs, effort, or scrutiny on one gender, it creates a workplace imbalance that the law was designed to prevent.

How to Prove a Dress Code Is Discriminatory

If you’re challenging a dress code, the key question is whether it treats one gender differently without a job-related necessity. Under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law, even seemingly small differences can matter if they consistently create more burden for one group.

Proving discrimination isn’t about personal opinion. It’s about gathering solid evidence:

• Written policy: Having the company’s official dress code in hand makes it easier to show gender-specific requirements.
• Enforcement records: Notes, emails, or warnings that show how the rules are applied.
• Witness accounts: Coworkers who’ve seen the same unequal treatment or enforcement patterns.

In New York, you don’t have to wait until a dress code directly costs you a promotion or job to take action. If it’s consistently enforced in a gender-biased way, it may already be violating the law. Federal agencies and New York courts both examine not just the wording of the policy, but how it’s actually applied in daily workplace life.

When Style Rules Cross the Legal Line

Not every dress code is unlawful. Employers can require professional attire or specific clothing for safety purposes. The trouble comes when style rules enforce outdated gender norms or have no real connection to the work being done.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the New York State Division of Human Rights have taken action in cases where dress codes required women to wear revealing outfits, or restricted men from having long hair without a safety-based reason. Under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, these rules often fail because they’re based on preference or tradition, not necessity.

Courts have also rejected the “branding” excuse when it comes to gendered dress codes. If a rule is about maintaining a company image rather than a specific job requirement, it’s on shaky legal ground. In New York, that means if a policy’s real purpose is to match a certain “look” tied to gender stereotypes, it may be ripe for challenge.

Vermont’s case law offers narrower dress code protections compared to New York

The state you work in can make a huge difference in how a dress code case plays out. In Vermont, courts have generally been more willing to uphold dress codes that impose different standards for men and women, as long as they’re seen as “comparable” in burden. That narrower view makes it harder to win a challenge there.

New York courts take a broader stance. The New York State Human Rights Law, combined with Title VII, allows employees to challenge dress codes even when the rules look balanced on paper. Judges here look deeper, at whether the actual impact of the policy reinforces stereotypes or puts one gender at a disadvantage.

This difference means that an employee in New York has more room to argue that a policy is discriminatory, even if it’s carefully worded. The law here focuses on the real-world consequences, not just the written rules.

Linking Dress Code Bias to Broader Discrimination Claims

A dress code problem is rarely the only sign of bias. Often, it’s part of a bigger pattern of unequal treatment. Under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law, you can connect a biased dress code to other discriminatory practices, such as:

• Being passed over for promotions.
• Getting fewer high-profile assignments.
• Receiving lower pay compared to equally qualified coworkers.

For example, if women in a department are required to wear clothing that’s less practical for certain tasks, and those same women are consistently given fewer opportunities for those tasks, the dress code becomes part of a larger discrimination picture. Linking these patterns together can strengthen your case by showing a broader culture of inequality rather than a single unfair rule.

Getting Policies Changed for Good

Challenging a discriminatory dress code isn’t just about your own experience, it can spark changes that help every employee who comes after you. Our employment law attorneys have represented clients whose cases led to rewritten policies that were fairer, clearer, and gender-neutral.

Sometimes, these changes happen voluntarily, with an employer recognizing the legal risk and taking action before the problem escalates. In other cases, the change is the direct result of a settlement or court ruling. Once a fair policy is in place, it benefits everyone: employees know the standards, managers have clearer guidelines to enforce, and the risk of future discrimination claims drops significantly.

Standing up to a biased policy can feel intimidating, but it can also create a lasting impact, shifting your workplace toward true equality in ways that go far beyond the clothes on your back.

Horn Wright, LLP, Will Help You Challenge Discriminatory Dress Codes

Our employment law attorneys understand how appearance rules can be used to limit opportunities, enforce stereotypes, and create unequal standards. At Horn Wright, LLP, we’ll hear your story, dig into the details, and help you hire one of the most respected workplace discrimination law firms in the nation to stand up for your rights. We’ll work to get the policy changed and the playing field leveled, so your future isn’t dictated by outdated rules.