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..