Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!ios!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!alan From: alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Job Dress Requirement Message-ID: <1318@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 16:01:52 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1318 Posted: Tue Sep 18 16:01:52 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 00:38:21 EDT References:Reply-To: alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) Organization: System Development Corporation, Santa Monica Lines: 18 Summary: >...a woman was just hired for a secretarial >position ... She found ...that women are >required to wear dresses... >She did not learn of this requirement until her first day on the >job, when her boss saw her wearing pants. > >As far as I know, there was no special dress code for men, but there might >have been. Oh? What do you think might have happened if one of the men tried wearing a dress? I suggest that he would have found that men are required to wear pants. sdcrdcf!alan P.S. I can't think of any instance in which preventing female employees from wearing a pants suit in lieu of a dress makes any sense at all, except for lecherous reasons..