Burlington Coat Factory Dress Code Policy and Discrimination Analysis

This case study examines the dress code policy of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, Inc., which required male clerks to wear business attire while female clerks were mandated to wear smocks. The female employees, including Karen O’Donnell, who refused to comply with the smock requirement and instead wore business attire, faced suspensions and eventual termination. The analysis argues that the policy was discriminatory because it imposed unequal requirements based on gender, potentially making female employees feel out of place. The study also highlights the failure of policymakers to consider employee consultation and cultural sensitivities in the policy-making process. While the employer had a reason for the policy, its disparate impact on female employees renders it potentially unlawful, despite court rulings that have previously upheld differing dress codes for different genders. The case concludes that the female employees were unfairly treated, but their resistance ultimately led to job loss.

Surname 1
Name
Tutor
Course
Date:
Issue
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, Inc., had a dress code that required male clerks
to wear business attire consisting of slacks, shirt, and necktie. Female salesclerks, by contrast,
were required to wear a smock so that customers could readily identify them. Karen
O’Donnell and other female employees refused to wear the smock. Instead they reported to
work in business attire and were suspended. After numerous suspensions, the female
employees were fired for violating Burlington’s dress code policy. All other conditions of
employment, including salary, hours, and benefits, were the same for female and male
employees.
Rule
The dressing code policy set by the Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse was
discriminatory as they did not equally make demands for both genders. The female
employees were in a position to feel out of place because the male colleagues wore business
attire. It was unfair that all the other policies in the organization including salaries and
benefits were equal for both genders. The suspension was rightful according to the law but
the management could have taken up some measures to listen to the grievances.
Analysis
Policymakers in the organization failed to make satisfying decisions for both parties
because they did not meet several requirements which aid in policy making of the employees
dressing code (Fauquet-Alekhine and Philippe 13). The explanation behind having the female
sale people wearing the smock dressing code was not reasonable to make them be

Surname 2
comfortable. Employees dressing code is not governed and regulated by the government
rather it is controlled by the policies made in the organization. Therefore, employees are free
to practice the given dressing code or not when they feel uncomfortable about it. However, it
is common that discrimination based on gender, religion or race could lead to inappropriate
decision making.
Furthermore, the dressing code policy in place for the female employees was not
flexible to accommodate the different backgrounds of the employees. For instance, it could
be that in some religion or culture it was not safe or even appropriate to wear such an attire
(Mohammad et al. 12). Additionally, the management involved in the policy did not consider
taking a chance to consult the employees who were directly affected by the decision. In this
case, it is evident that no consultation was made as they were conflicts between the employer
and the employees. This means that the decisions were made with a particular aspect of
discrimination because it could be that there was nobody who could stand for better dressing
code for the female sale marketers. Moreover, what the management thought would be
presentable as sale marketers were not enough for the employees themselves as it was not
satisfactory to them (Mohammad et al. 10). This makes it a discriminatory policy as the
management does not want to settle the dispute that comes along with the implementation of
the dressing policy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the female employees were unfairly treated by the dressing code
policy. However, resisting to use other means to solve the issue lead to them losing their jobs.
In the past, courts have ruled against such disobedience because the employer has provided a
reason behind their decision. The courts have made decision that the dressing code could be
followed even when they are different from the other gender. However, the employer policy
has affected one group of employee more than the other which is against the law.

Surname 3
Works Cited
Fauquet-Alekhine, Philippe. "Clothing-based discrimination at work: the case of the Goth
subculture." British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science 13.4 (2016): 1-
16.
Mohammad, Jihad, et al. "I’ll do whatever I want… who are you to prohibit me? A tattle tale
of workplace deviance." Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies 8.1 (2018): 1-14.