Can you be discriminated against for wearing the color pink? Thankfully, probably not. But that raises a more important question: what can employers lawfully regulate when it comes to workplace attire?
In 1937, Helen Hulick was held in contempt of court and briefly jailed for wearing slacks in a Los Angeles courtroom.[1] Before 1973, female White House staff were not permitted to wear pants to work.[2] President Richard Nixon relaxed this dress code only after telling reporter Helen Thomas he preferred women in dresses. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may not discriminate because of an employee’s sex, religion, race, or national origin.[3] Yet when it comes to workplace dress codes, grooming policies, and appearance requirements, the line between professionalism and discrimination has long been blurred, especially for women.
In the 1980s, a senior manager at a national accounting firm was being considered for partnership, at a time when women were still significantly underrepresented in firm leadership.[4] During her evaluation, partners described her as “abrasive” and advised that she could improve her chances for advancement by “walking more femininely, talking more femininely, [and] dressing more femininely,” explicitly tying professional success to compliance with gendered appearance expectations rather than job performance.[5] The Supreme Court held that this type of sex stereotyping violates Title VII, making clear that employment decisions may not be influenced by assumptions about how women should look or behave in professional settings.[6] Women who were once barred from wearing pants to preserve femininity are now expected to suppress that same femininity in order to succeed in the workplace.[7] This tension illustrates how appearance-based expectations continue to shift yet consistently burden women.
More than twenty-five years later, the Supreme Court again addressed appearance-based workplace rules faced by women whose appearance is shaped by religious practice.[8] In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the employer refused to hire a Muslim applicant because her headscarf conflicted with the company’s “Look Policy.”[9] The Court held that Title VII prohibits employers from making a legally protected characteristic a motivating factor in an employment decision.[10] In other words, even a facially neutral dress code cannot be applied in a way that disadvantages an applicant because of the applicant's religious practice.
Despite this recognition, many grooming policies disproportionately burden women of color who wear natural or protective hairstyles. In response, states have begun passing the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair), which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on hair texture and protective styles such as braids, locs, and twists.[11] Although the CROWN Act was recently passed in Pennsylvania in November 2025,, half of the U.S. states have yet to adopt this protective legislation.[12] This state-by-state approach leaves many workers without clear protections and allows appearance-based discrimination to persist.
One of the most controversial cases in this area is Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., where an employer required female bartenders to wear makeup.[13] The policy targeted at female employees required “[f]ace powder, blush and mascara,” and “[l]ip color must be worn at all times.”[14] The court upheld the policy because male employees also had to adhere to a grooming policy.[15] Women were required to wear makeup, while men were required to keep their hair short.[16] The court acknowledged that sex stereotyping can constitute unlawful discrimination, but distinguished that precedent by reasoning that the grooming policy did not affect the employee’s ability to perform her job.[17] It concluded that neither sex bore a greater burden and that the policy did not hinder women’s job performance, holding that grooming standards are permissible so long as they impose “equal burdens” on men and women.[18] But this “equal burdens” analysis is deeply flawed. The female grooming requirements were significantly more detailed and more invasive than those imposed on men, and as we all know, separate but equal is never truly equal. The decision reflects a judicial reluctance to interrogate how gendered expectations shape what is considered “professional”, often to women’s detriment.
Today, workplace dress codes are not inherently unlawful, as employers have a reasonable right to maintain professionalism. However, women have historically been scrutinized and regulated for their appearance in ways men have not, and appearance standards that disproportionately police women’s clothing, hair, or presentation risk reinforcing inequality rather than preventing it. Although employers deserve discretion in managing workplace professionalism, that discretion must be exercised in a way that respects women’s existing rights under the law to dress professionally on their own terms. Ultimately, true professionalism should be measured by performance and not conformity to gendered appearance norms, as women should not fear discipline or termination for something as simple as wearing pink.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
[3] Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17.
[4] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 231-32 (1989).
[8] EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768, 772-73 (2015).
[12] Id.; 16 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951 et seq. (2024) (Amending the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act).
[13] Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 444 F.3d 1104, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
