It may also be an issue of what she was required to do at this particular location not working as well with the overall dress code of the temp agency. Temp job answering phones and sitting at a desk -- heels might be okay for many women. Temp job where you are on your feet and walking the whole time...a different matter.

One thing I noticed when I was job hunting in the UK a decade ago (in an area with lots of banking) was that the expectation for women in business was to lean heavily feminine in their work clothes, more than women in the US would necessarily be expected to, at least from what I observed. It would be frigid outside and I'd see women in short pencil skirts and nude hose and high heels and blazers tottering along the high street -- men were in ties and suits and could more easily adjust to weather. It's probably evolved some now, but this case makes me wonder...

rabbit, the UK situation you describe is downright discriminatory and should be regulated by laws that are enforced.

Although I personally like heels and that is a personal taste, forcing anyone to wear them for any task is discriminatory and should not be tolerated. For some, wearing heels can be demeaning, even humiliating. Nobody would dream of imposing a dress code that is recognized as unhealthy to men. Heels can impede any movement. It is simply not fair to require one to wear them because of their gender. And this practice hides a slew of other existing discriminatory habits that would need to be addressed if this imposition was lifted: the fact that "beautiful" women get ahead faster and easier, ageism, transgender-ism, racism, etc.

Yes, this made me furious. Wearing heels by choice is one thing: being forced to do so is unacceptable. If men had to wear them, they'd go out of fashion overnight.

Ridiculous and sexist. Even if she knew ahead of time, she might have thought it wasn't actually enforced. And if she only did it to create public awareness, more power to her - it worked. Maybe now that policy will change for the better of all their female employees. Although, I have to wonder if a company has that strict a dress code, what other policies do they have that might not be friendly to women.

Oh this mKes me mad! I had a talk with my boys recently about how high heels are a way of keeping women incapacitated...not to say they can't be lovely but ...

Oh and my 10 and 13 yr kids agreed that it would be very hard to get away in q zombie apocalypse in high heels.. Although a stiletto could make a good weapon

Momo, LOL!

Still, as others have pointed out, there WAS a clearly stated dress code which she agreed to when she opted to work for this temp agency. And that dress code might be a significant reason why a client company chose to work with this particular agency instead of other temp agencies.

While I agree that dress codes need to be carefully thought out, I also have some sympathy for companies who get blasted for wanting their employees to wear what used to be "normal" business attire. That 2" block heel is a pretty common solution for many professional women who cannot, or will not, wear a stiletto heel. Maybe not as comfortable as a flat, but then most men don't find wearing a suit jacket with a stiff collared shirt and tie to be comfort wear either.

I'm with RobinF on this one.

I just want to point out there is quite a difference between this 2" block heel pump and the 4-5" stilettos in the pictures accompanying the articles.

I think the prohibition against flats is rather stupid as many of you have pointed out, but if you think about how a "dressy flat" could be interpreted, I'm not totally ready to throw the company under the bus. I know some people who consider their flipflops "dressy" because they have fake "jewels" on them and others who see nothing wrong with wearing a pair of broken-down ballerinas, or a pair of canvas Toms, with a suit...

I agree with Gaylene that women's dress codes are much more complicated than men's. I can understand the IDEA behind the company's policy, even if it isn't well thought out or executed.

As for krishnidoux's point about nice looking women getting ahead faster and all the -isms in society, these things are also true for men. That doesn't necessarily make it right, of course, but it is common knowledge (backed up by research) that men who are taller make more money and get hired and promoted more easily than shorter men. Likewise for good looking men. And because these factors are often "invisible" in the sense that the hiring team didn't necessarily even realize their bias, they will be very difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate.

Women taking to social media now to protest.

Hmm, so how many of those "flats" would be appropriate in environments where men normally wear dark suits, ties, and polished leather shoes?

I agree a dress code requiring "heels" isn't the brightest move, but, scrolling through those pictures, I can see why it might be lucrative for temp agency to enforce a "professional" dress code. Companies concerned about the appearance of their front-line staff would probably be over the moon seeing a temporary receptionist show up in a suit and heels.

I secretly love that Virgin Airlines had only blond stewardesses under 24, except for the token brunette, long after all American airlines switched to grumpy grandma (there was a moment on Delta where the flight attendants wouldn't smile because it was fraternizing).

But you know, stewardesses - the most glamorous dress code dressers ever - wore flats while working. 120 lbs of weight concentrated into a 1/4" square does damage ...to planes!

That company is going down.

I'm not against a dress code. Many of the posters are actually working from home, it seems. Anything goes there, so it's not a fair comparison. (Funny as some of them are about it.)

But rather than requiring women to wear heels (which could also be wildly inappropriate in style for the workplace in question) why not specify the level of formality required, with photos if illustrations are needed? It seems as if they've missed a chance here. They dug their heels in (so to speak) when they could have re-tied their laces and ended up with more support.

Great advice, Suz! But, to be fair, it seems like this agency's main focus was supplying front-line staff to corporate clients located in the centre of a major city. Even the "wronged" party admits that she was fine with the corporate uniform, it's just the "heels" bit that rubbed (?) her the wrong way.

The company could have left some room for discretion in its dress code, but, as Rachylou says, that boat has probably sailed. I'd love to hear the British parliament, though, discussing the ins and outs of women's footwear--a statute on flipflops, sneakers, and toe thongs...

I wonder about wearing platforms instead of stilettos. That's what I do because my fussy feet and bunions can't tolerate flats or pumps or regular heels. I love my Danskos!

While I agree the rule may be silly and sexist, I think it should be a privately-owned company's right to enforce whatever dress code works for their business plan.

For example, I don't want to wear a hairnet, a uniform, a name tag or work boots 40 hours/week. These desires may limit my employability and that's my problem, not a potential employer's.

I'm not sure what the law states in the UK, but I live in an Employment At Will state in the USA, which means that one's employment can be terminated and the employer isn't legally bound to give a reason why.

On the topic of heels, this photo has been making the rounds on social media. It was posted by a Canadian employee of Joey's (don't know if they have this chain elsewhere; it's a fairly nice, trendy restaurant), after working an 11 hour shift in her compulsory high heels.

For those of you who say that perhaps a woman shouldn't take a job with a dress code she won't follow: I see your point. But it's still sexism. High heels make a woman look sexier. A woman should not be ineligible for a job because she can't comply with a rule designed to make her look sexier, unless she's a strip club employee.

I also agree with Gaylene that there is a big difference between a 4" stiletto and a 2" block heel. The latter can easily be a comfortable grandma shoe. I think the Joey's employee in the pic below had to wear stilettos, whereas it doesn't sound like the woman in the original article was in the same boat. But giving her the benefit of the doubt, and knowing how bad heels are for your feet in general, I'm going to side with her, not the company.

ETA what Zibbets says about hairnets, work boots and uniforms is different. Those are for cleanliness and safety, not aesthetics.

Thinking back, in my first, sitting-down office job I was required to wear flats to protect the wooden flooring. In my next - on my feet all day - I had to wear heels. At the time it didn't bother me, but I would have thought things would have moved on a little since then.

I don't work for a private company, but t I have to adhere to a recently created dress code that wasn't in place when I was hired.

This is a difficult debate. I'm in two minds. I work in property and construction / development. I'm in a job with a clearly set out dress code, which is relatively strict, conservative and formal. I knew what it was when I accepted the post. I've worked for other companies with similar codes and one firm in particular had a "no trousers to be worn by women" policy. Slightly strange because they certainly would have objected if I'd gone to a construction site in a skirt and climbed around scaffolding. They changed the policy 1st Jan 2000!

I had some really difficult situations when I first started out, with harassment. All resolved and no lasting damage. But for me, it was a lesson learnt. I decided I go to work to pay the rent / mortgage / shopping (clothes obvs!). I set myself clear guidelines and have stuck to them more or less (several catastrophic failures - another story!).

So for me it's about your own standards and being clear about them. I would have been unlikely to have responded to the heels in that way. I would have been concerned about being avoided by other employers at the very least, let alone colleagues, prior and future. So would have done all that I could to back out gracefully and respectfully.

But hey, we all need to do what we can to keep ourselves intact in difficult situations.

Really interesting posts.

Yeah I'm thinking with Aziraphale that there is a larger societal issue with sexism at play and a desire to have women conform to traditional sexualized gender roles. Jane's story of a company that only allowed women to wear trousers in 2000... Where is the line between being a waitress/"entertainer" working at Hooters (I had a friend who interviewed there once, not knowing what the restaurant was about much to her chagrin) and a model hired at Virgin airlines, and a receptionist at a business in which sex appeal doesn't seem to be a key component of the service experience?

Casualization in a business setting is a separate issue -- it makes sense to me that guidelines can be set about that, but can't that be separated from a requirement for skirts or heels for women in those settings?