Editing Dress code (section)

==Private dress codes==
[[File:Black Tie-Regular LGE.jpg|thumb|upright|Black tie standard]]
Many places have their own private dress code; these organizations may insist on particular dress codes or standards in particular situations, such as for weddings, funerals, religious gatherings, etc.

=== Workplace ===
[[File:Chrystia Freeland with Rex Tillerson in Ottawa - 2017 (38457257634).jpg|thumb|[[Deputy Prime Minister of Canada|Canadian Deputy PM]] [[Chrystia Freeland]] with [[United States Secretary of State|U.S. Secretary of State]] [[Rex Tillerson]] in [[Western dress code]] at a meeting]]

Employees are sometimes required to wear a [[uniform]] or certain standards of dress, such as a business suit and tie. This may depend on particular situations, for example if they are expected to interact with customers. (See also [[International standard business attire]])

In Western countries, these policies vary depending on the industry. [[Lawyers]], [[bankers]], and [[Executive (management)|executives]] often wearing a suit and tie, with black shoes and belt, while [[casual wear]] is more common in the [[technology industry]].<ref name="theatlantic-american-casual"/> Some businesses observe that anti-discrimination laws restricts their determining what is appropriate and inappropriate workplace clothing. Requiring men and women to dress differently at the workplace can be challenged because the gender-specific dress codes would be based on one sex and could be considered stereotypical.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/employeedressandappearance.aspx|website=Society for Human Resource Management|access-date=27 September 2017|title = Employee Dress and Appearance}}{{subscription required}}</ref> Most businesses have authority in determining and establishing what workplace clothes they can require of their workers. Generally, a carefully drafted dress code applied consistently does not violate anti-discrimination laws.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.ppspublishers.com/biz/dresscode.htm |title = Dress Code Legal Issues|website =  Personnel Policy Services Inc|last = Thomas|first = Robin|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160314064207/http://www.ppspublishers.com/biz/dresscode.htm|archive-date = 14 March 2016}}</ref> So long as the dress code does not favor one gender over the other it is usually acceptable by law for employers to have a private dress code.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/discrimination/illegal-workplace-policy.htm|title=Illegal Workplace Policies: Appearance, Dress Codes, and Grooming Policies|website=www.employmentlawfirms.com|language=en|access-date=2019-03-17}}</ref>

In the United States, it is legal for employers to require women to wear makeup and ban men from wearing it. It has been argued that such a distinction in a dress code is not discriminatory because both sexes have rules about their appearance. An important court case that occurred in the U.S was the ''[[Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co.]]'', which allowed for a workplace to require that female employees wear makeup while their male counterparts were banned from doing so. Darlene Jespersen worked at [[Harrah's Entertainment|Harrah's Casino]] for more than 20 years and found that the makeup and dress code was not only unattainable but degrading.<ref name=":2">{{cite book|last1=Ainsworth|first1=Janet|url=|title=Law, Culture and Visual Studies|publisher=Dordrecht Springer|date=January 2014|isbn=978-90-481-9322-6|pages=241–260|chapter=What's Wrong with Pink Pearls and Cornrow Braids? Employee Dress Codes and the Semiotic Performance of Race and Gender in the Workplace}}</ref> Jespersen found that the 'Personal Best' policy was not true to her natural appearance as it required a full face of makeup including foundation, powder, blush, mascara, and lipstick.<ref name=":2" /> Jespersen stated that this policy "forced her to be ... 'dolled up' like a sexual object, and ... took away her credibility as an individual and as a person."<ref name=":2" /> In opposition men who worked at Harrah's Casino were banned from wearing makeup, nail polish, and other traditionally female attires.<ref name=":2" /> [[Alex Kozinski|Judge Kozinski]] argued that [[Hyperestrogenism|hyperfemininity]] was a burden that only women employees suffered. Kozinski stated that the time, effort and expense was more of a hindrance than just being banned from wearing makeup.<ref name=":2" /> However despite these efforts, in the ruling, it was decided that women did not have a larger burden in the requirements of the dress code but two judges disagreed and argued that makeup takes more time and money and that sex stereotyping occurred because women's bare faces were seen as less desirable.<ref name=":2" />

====New Jersey BorgataBabes case====

In [[New Jersey]], twenty-one women sued the [[Borgata|Borgata Casino Hotel & Spa]] for requiring them to lose weight and stay under a certain size to maintain their jobs. The women argued that the management would ridicule them over weight gain even if they were pregnant. The case was dismissed in New Jersey because the BorgataBabes program required that both men and women maintain certain body shapes and sizes. The "BorgataBabes&nbsp;contractually agreed to adhere to these strict personal appearance and conduct standards".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Schiavo v. Marina District Development Company, LLC, NJ: Appellate Div. 2015 - Google Scholar|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4942181328196123281&q=borgata+babe&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006|access-date=2021-02-26|website=scholar.google.com}}</ref> In 2016, Superior Court Judge [[Nelson Johnson]] dismissed the claims because the appearance standards were lawful. He also determined that the women could return to court for their claims of a hostile environment created by the management.<ref>{{Cite web|last=NJ.com|first=Paige Gross {{!}} For|date=2019-05-20|title=The 'Borgata Babes' who sued the casino a decade ago will get their day in court. Rules about their weight were discriminatory, they say|url=https://www.nj.com/atlantic/2019/05/the-borgata-babes-who-sued-the-casino-a-decade-ago-claiming-discriminating-weight-rules-will-get-their-day-in-court.html|access-date=2021-02-26|website=nj|language=en}}</ref>

====''Doe v. Boeing Corporation'' (1993)====

Doe, a [[transgender]] person beginning [[Gender transitioning|gender transition]], found that her supervisors at the engineering company, [[Boeing|Boeing Corporation]], were uncooperative with her desire to wear feminine presenting clothing to work. She was warned against wearing, "obviously feminine clothing such as dresses, skirts, or frilly blouses" and from using the women's bathroom. This was even after her counselor recommended that wearing female presenting clothing would help with her transition. After a few warnings from her supervisors, Doe showed up to work wearing a pink pantsuit and was subsequently fired for violating the dress code. This prompted Doe to legal action. The [[Washington Supreme Court|Washington State Supreme Court]] ultimately upheld the decision made by Boeing and stated that the company had the right to determine what female identity looked like while at work.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="justia-doe-boeing">{{cite court|litigants=Jane Doe v. Boeing Company |vol=121 |reporter=Wn.2d |opinion=8 |court=Supreme Court of Washington, ''en banc'' |date=1993 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1993/59117-2-1.html }}</ref>

====''Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. &. G.R Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.''====

[[Aimee Stephens]], a transgender woman, worked at the [[R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|R.G. &. G.R Harris Funeral Homes]] and originally was dressing as a stereotypical male following the funeral home's male attire, but Stephens had intended to transition to female attire to better suit her [[gender identity]]. Thomas Rost, the owner of the funeral home, fired Stephens for not presenting herself as a man and for dressing like a woman.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|title=Eeoc v. Rg &. Gr Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.|date=October 4, 2017|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11341739590762191378&q=r.g.+&+g.r.+harris+funeral+homes+v.+eeoc&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1|volume=884|pages=560|access-date=February 25, 2021}}, Argued: October 4, 2017</ref> Stephens opened a case at the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]], stating discrimination based on sex and gender but the district court sided with the funeral home&nbsp;stating, "that transgender status is not a protected trait under [[Title VII]]".<ref name=":3" /> In the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]], it was ruled that Stephens was unlawfully fired based on [[Sexism|sex discrimination]], which does protect transgender people.<ref>{{Cite web|title=R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens|url=https://www.aclu.org/cases/rg-gr-harris-funeral-homes-v-eeoc-aimee-stephens|access-date=2021-02-26|website=American Civil Liberties Union|language=en}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] ruled in 2020 against firing someone for being homosexual or transgender, as being discrimination based on sex.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Higgins|first=Tucker|date=2020-06-15|title=Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-cant-be-fired-for-being-gay-or-transgender.html|access-date=2021-02-26|website=CNBC|language=en}}</ref>

====''The CROWN Act''====

The CROWN act, standing for "create a respectful and open world for natural hair" is a California law that prohibits discrimination in the school and workplace based on the style or texture of one's hair. The act was created in 2019 by Dove and the CROWN Coalition in partnership with California's State Senator Holly J. Mitchel.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thecrownact.com/|title=The Official CROWN Act|website=The Official CROWN Act}}</ref> After a study conducted by Dove to reveal the degree of workplace discrimination towards black women, the data was used to spread awareness and elicit change for the act to be passed. CROWN continues to fight for this cause, with a recent work-study conducted in 2023 revealing that discrimination regarding hair texture still prevails. As of June 2023, 23 US states have enacted the CROWN act into law. <ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-equity-diversity/crown-act-state-prohibit-hair-discrimination#:~:text=As%20of%20June%202023%2C%2023,including%20the%20U.S.%20Virgin%20Islands | title=CROWN Act: Does Your State Prohibit Hair Discrimination? }}</ref>

=== Formal wear ===
{{Main|Formal wear}}
In Western countries, a "formal" dress code typically means coats for men and [[Evening gown|evening dresses]] for women. The most-formal dress code is a full-length [[ball gown|ball]] or [[evening gown]]s with [[evening gloves]] for women and for men [[white tie]], which also includes a [[tailcoat]].

"Semi-formal" has a much less precise definition but typically means an evening jacket and tie for men (known as [[black tie]]) and a dress for women. A frilled or patterned white shirt is considered more formal than a plain white or black shirt, and a black [[bow tie]] is considered more formal than a plain black [[necktie|cravat]], but all could be considered appropriate, depending upon the gala or wedding, when white, black, and blue were the only acceptable colors for weddings and gala events in the 20th century.

"Business casual" typically means not wearing [[necktie]]s or [[Suit (clothing)|suits]], but wearing instead collared shirts, and trousers (not black, but more ''relaxed'', including things such as [[corduroy]]).

"Casual" typically just means clothing for the torso, legs and shoes.

"Wedding Casual" defines yet another mode of dress, where guests dress respectfully, but not necessarily fancily. Weddings in the 21st century tend to attract more colorful clothing than traditionally in the past. Ethnically appropriate costumes, such as a [[kilt]], [[turban]], [[Barong tagalog]], [[sari]], or [[kinte cloth]] are also worn frequently.

=== Business casual ===
{{Main|Business casual}}
''Business casual'' dress is a popular workplace dress code that emerged in [[white-collar worker|white-collar]] workplaces in [[Western world|Western countries]] in the 1990s, especially in the United States and Canada. Many [[information technology]] businesses in [[Silicon Valley]] were early adopters of this dress code. In contrast to formal business wear such as [[suit (clothing)|suit]]s and [[necktie]]s (the [[international standard business attire]]), the business casual dress code has no generally accepted definition; its interpretation differs widely among organizations and is often a cause of sartorial confusion among workers.

The [[job search engine]] [[Monster.com]] offers this definition, "In general, business casual means dressing professionally, looking relaxed, yet neat and pulled together." A more pragmatic definition is that business casual dress is the mid ground between formal business clothes and street clothes. Generally, neckties are excluded from business casual dress, unless worn in nontraditional ways. The acceptability of blue [[jeans]] and denim cloth clothing varies — some businesses consider them to be sloppy and informal.

===Vestments===

{{main|Vestment}}

In certain Christian and other religions, [[Vestment]]s are worn by clergy, [[cantor]]s, and [[acolyte]]s. In denominations that follow a set liturgical cycle, that dress might vary by season or occasion; for example, for a funeral, the bishop may dictate that clergy to wear black garb with white stoles.

===Unwritten rules===

Because dress codes are frequently unwritten and unspoken, some [[Neurodivergence|neurodivergent people]] have difficulty understanding, finding, shopping for, and dressing appropriately to the codes of special events.{{citation needed|date=January 2025}}