Recruiting now
MPs have today been debating whether it should be illegal for employers to require women to wear high heels at work after an e-petition instigated by Nicola Thorp, a receptionist from London, was backed by over 150,000 people.
The petition, which labels current formal work dress codes as “out-dated and sexist”, was discussed in Westminster Hall.
Nicola Thorp was sent home from work back in May 2016 when she refused to wear high heels. She had arrived at finance company PwC to be told by her employer Portico she had to wear shoes with a “2in to 4in heel”.
Ms Thorp commented at the time: “I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said ‘I just won’t be able to do that in heels’.”
During the debate today, MP Gill Furniss recounted how her daughter suffered a fractured foot after she was forced to wear high heels at work. The MP said her daughter was denied sick pay or compensation after suffering a metatarsal fracture, the same injury footballer David Beckham suffered just before the 2002 World Cup.
She hit out at employers who force women to have to put up with "humiliating and degrading" dress codes. She said some women are told they must wear a "full face" of make-up and are "even told which shade of red" to wear on their lips.
She remarked "We know that in some professions, standing in high heels for a period of an eight-hour shift is the norm".
Ms Thorp’s exposé prompted the Petitions Committee and Women and Equalities Committee to conduct a joint investigation into workplace dress codes and their report was released in January. They called for a review of equality legislation after it emerged that women have been told to dye their hair and wear revealing clothes. It called for the Government “to take urgent action to improve the effectiveness of the Equality Act” and called on ministers to review this area of the law.
Labour MP Helen Jones, chairwoman of the Petitions Committee, said they heard evidence of "discriminatory" and "totally reprehensible" attitudes towards women.
She said: "It is fair to say that what we found shocked us. We found attitudes that belonged more, I was going to say in the 1950s but probably the 1850s might be more accurate, than in the 21st century.
"And we found that women, especially young women in vulnerable employment, were exploited at work.
"Threatened with dismissal if they complained, they were forced to bear pain all day, or to wear clothing that was totally unsuitable for the tasks that they were asked to perform, or to dress in a way that they felt sexualised their appearance and was demeaning".
She went on to say "women in heels were expected to climb ladders, move furniture and walk for great distances"
Shadow equalities minister Paula Sherriff suggested gender-based dress codes make women more vulnerable to sexual harassment in the workplace.
She said: "Further, any level of objectification in this way based clearly on a particular understanding of beauty and gender stereotypes may have negative implications for women who do not conform to this."
Ms Sherriff also suggested the introduction of employment tribunal fees of up to £1,200 had stopped many women from seeking recourse through the courts.
Womens and Equalities minister Caroline Dinenage called on all employers to review their dress codes saying women had had to put up for too long with these requirements “because that’s the way things are”. She stressed it was up to women what clothes and shoes they wore – not “outdated, dodgy, 1970s diktat”. She added: “Shod in heels or flats we are collectively putting our foot down.”
The conservative MP for Gosport said she had written to key trade bodies about the "outdated and sexist employment practices" uncovered in this case, saying the Government would not tolerate any form of discrimination. She said the Government would also support the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in any legal actions against companies which are forcing women to wear heels or inappropriate uniform.
Work dress code woes, let us know your experiences.