A London Receptionist Sent Home For Not Wearing High Heels Now Sexist Dress Codes Are Being Reconsidered

Two years ago, London-based temp receptionist and actress Nicola Thorp was told she'd have to leave the office of accounting firm PwC without pay because she showed up wearing black flats. To come back, she'd need to get herself a pair of heels at least two inches high. On Wednesday, a parliamentary report confirmed that Portico—the outsourcing firm that hired her—had broken the law, and stated that tougher ones need to be put into place surrounding blatantly sexist dress codes.

The obvious-seeming conclusion comes months after Thorp, now 28, started a petition calling for a law that would make it illegal for companies to demand women wear high heels to work against their will. With more than 152,000 signatures, the petition went viral and spurred an inquiry overseen by the parliamentary committees for Petitions and for Women and Equalities, according to The New York Times, which received complaints from hundreds of other women who say they too were asked to look and dress a certain way at the office.

"The way that Nicola Thorp was treated by her employer is against the law, but that didn't stop her being sent home from work without pay," said Parliament's Chair of the Petitions Committee, Helen Jones,according to The Guardian. "It's clear from the stories we've heard from members of the public that Nicola's story is far from unique."

In 2017, it's pretty hard to believe that companies still enforce blatantly sexist dress codes, and Portico's—which included mandatesthat makeup had to to be “worn at all times” and “regularly reapplied,” with a minimum of lipstick, mascara, and eyeshadow; nail polish had to be specific colors; hosiery a certain thickness; and roots on dyed hair were to be covered—was immediately appended after Thorp's charge.

Still, it's a subject that feels especially prevalent as the world looks to the United States' new president.

“I refused to work for a company that expected women to wear makeup, heels, and a skirt. This is unacceptable in 2017,” Throrp said. “People say sexism is not an issue anymore. But when a man who hasadmitted publicly to sexually harassing women is the leader of the free world, it is more crucial than ever to have laws that protect women.”

As far as how women in the United States are protected against the same type of inequity, Alex Granovsk—a New York–based employment attorney withGranovsky & Sundaresh PLLC—toldGlamour that most legal issues surrounding dress code fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.

"Title VII states that you can't discriminate on the basis of gender," he said. "And that includes gender stereotypes."

There are exceptions to the rule, Granovsky said, citing a corner of employment law known as bona fide occupational qualifications, which is when an employer is allowed to hire people based on specific necessary qualities or attributes that would probably be considered discriminatory in other contexts. For example, most people wouldn't bat an eye to learn that a model casting is only open to individuals over a certain height and under a certain weight, but we'd be appalled if that mandate was enforced in a corporate setting.

The line is murky, though: A federal appeals court ruled last Septemberthat firing an employee for wearing her hair in dreadlocks wasn't racial discrimination, while in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 againstretailer Abercrombie & Fitch when it rejected a Muslim applicant because she wore a hijab, even though—according to The Huffington Post—her religious beliefs never came up in the interview.

In Thorpe's case, Parliament has acknowledged that the British government needs to take urgent action to improve the effectiveness of the Equality Act and will formally debate her petition in March. You can read the entire report—called "High Heels and Workplace Dress Codes: Urgent Action Needed"—on its official website.