[DanBC]

Here's a link to the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823

> It's still legal in the UK for a company to require female members of staff to wear high heels at work against their will. Dress code laws should be changed so that women have the option to wear flat formal shoes at work, if they wish. Current formal work dress codes are out-dated and sexist.

It follows this case: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36264229

> Temp worker Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney, arrived at finance company PwC to be told she had to wear shoes with a "2in to 4in heel".

> When she refused and complained male colleagues were not asked to do the same, she was sent home without pay.

> Outsourcing firm Portico said Ms Thorp had "signed the appearance guidelines" but it would now review them.

(You can submit either a link, or text, but not both.)

[ManlyBread]

>Dress code laws should be changed so that women have the option to wear flat formal shoes at work, if they wish.

What about models or hostess where wearing high heels is a part of the job?

[DanBC]

There are exceptions for things that are intrinsic parts of the job - they come under "proportionate means to achieve legitimate aim" or somesuch.

Wearing heels is not something receptionists need to do to perform their job - and wearing heels is likely to make their job harder. It'd be great if she got some legal funding to challenge this, or if it's not challengeable that she gets enough signatures to force a change.

[dingaling]

> Wearing heels is not something receptionists need to do to perform their job

Wearing a suit and tie wasn't necessary to perform my job as a programmer and was actively uncomfortable in the Summer when the women could wear sandals and low-cut tops.

We challenged the dress code on several occasions with HR and their eventual solution was... Dress-down Fridays.

Eventually one of the officers from the US HQ asked why all the guys were wearing ties when he didn't. That forced a change but there was no UK legal obligation for a harmonised unisex dress-code.

[dalke]

I don't know if you noticed, but you made a slight change in topic.

DanBC's comment was that there are cases where workplace sex discrimination is allowed, because they are part of the primary purpose of the company.

For example, the Playboy club can decide to only employ women as hosts, and require them to wear bunny costumes. This is a requirement for the type of service the Playboy club provides.

On the other hand, Hooters cannot refrain from hiring men as hosts, because Hooters is primarily a restaurant. (I apologize for not knowing the UK equivalent for this example.)

Wearing high heels is not a requirement of secretarial work, so this exception does not apply. But a company can still regulate clothing even if not part of the job requirement.

In Sweden, where I live, it is not (I believe) legal to discriminate based on sex for the dress code. That does not mean there is a "harmonised unisex dress-code." For example, a few years ago the temperature in Stockholm was so warm that the male underground operators wanted to wear shorts. This is not allowed by the dress code. It is allowed to wear skirts, which is what they did. (See for example http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nid... ).

Under that framework, you should have been allowed to wear sandals and low-cut tops, and the women should be allowed to wear a suit and tie.