Can/should dress code be sued as discriminatory?

[David Hume]

For example, some Muslim and Indians may like to wear their traditional clothes. But if a fine dinning restaurant enforce dress code that only allow suits, and deny entry of those wearing  traditional clothes. Can they be sued for discrimination against racial/religious minorities?

In some sense, dress code is almost blatant discrimination against the poor, which seems terrible. But I also feel fine dining restaurants should be allowed to create a reasonable atmosphere by denying service to those not dressing appropriately.

Another is workplace dress code. Some females may be required to wear heels. I am a cis-straight male, but I think forcing someone to wear uncomfortable and unhealthy shoes because of they are female is discrimination based on gender, and should be outlawed. But then, forcing females to wear anything different from males is also discrimination based on gender, and vice versa. If female are required to wear skirts, they should be able to sue it as discriminatory based on gender.

If I don't want to wear dress shoes, can I sue the dress code as discriminatory since females can wear a different type of shoes (heels in this case)? And if a company want to avoid this problem, can they just say anyone can choose to wear either dress shoes or heels regardless of gender, but nothing else?

[Person Man]

For example, some Muslim and Indians may like to wear their traditional clothes. But if a fine dinning restaurant enforce dress code that only allow suits, and deny entry of those wearing  traditional clothes. Can they be sued for discrimination against racial/religious minorities?

In some sense, dress code is almost blatant discrimination against the poor, which seems terrible. But I also feel fine dining restaurants should be allowed to create a reasonable atmosphere by denying service to those not dressing appropriately.

Another is workplace dress code. Some females may be required to wear heels. I am a cis-straight male, but I think forcing someone to wear uncomfortable and unhealthy shoes because of they are female is discrimination based on gender, and should be outlawed. But then, forcing females to wear anything different from males is also discrimination based on gender, and vice versa. If female are required to wear skirts, they should be able to sue it as discriminatory based on gender.

If I don't want to wear dress shoes, can I sue the dress code as discriminatory since females can wear a different type of shoes (heels in this case)? And if a company want to avoid this problem, can they just say anyone can choose to wear either dress shoes or heels regardless of gender, but nothing else?

Is the discrimination a part of the otherwise legal term of association or contract? For example, women can't be priests and no one is suing the Catholic church TMK.

[David Hume]

For example, some Muslim and Indians may like to wear their traditional clothes. But if a fine dinning restaurant enforce dress code that only allow suits, and deny entry of those wearing  traditional clothes. Can they be sued for discrimination against racial/religious minorities?

In some sense, dress code is almost blatant discrimination against the poor, which seems terrible. But I also feel fine dining restaurants should be allowed to create a reasonable atmosphere by denying service to those not dressing appropriately.

Another is workplace dress code. Some females may be required to wear heels. I am a cis-straight male, but I think forcing someone to wear uncomfortable and unhealthy shoes because of they are female is discrimination based on gender, and should be outlawed. But then, forcing females to wear anything different from males is also discrimination based on gender, and vice versa. If female are required to wear skirts, they should be able to sue it as discriminatory based on gender.

If I don't want to wear dress shoes, can I sue the dress code as discriminatory since females can wear a different type of shoes (heels in this case)? And if a company want to avoid this problem, can they just say anyone can choose to wear either dress shoes or heels regardless of gender, but nothing else?

Is the discrimination a part of the otherwise legal term of association or contract? For example, women can't be priests and no one is suing the Catholic church TMK.

Say the contract did not say it explicitly, but something like "employees should dress appropriately in accordance with the regulations of the company".

[brucejoel99]

For example, some Muslim and Indians may like to wear their traditional clothes. But if a fine dinning restaurant enforce dress code that only allow suits, and deny entry of those wearing  traditional clothes. Can they be sued for discrimination against racial/religious minorities?

Yes, given that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in addition to numerous state laws) forbids discrimination by private businesses serving as places of public accommodation on either of those grounds. So, if one feels that such a place of public accommodation has discriminated against them on a legally relevant basis, then they may have a legitimate civil case to establish & then pursue to the fullest extent under all applicable laws, including the ability to claim any damages.

In some sense, dress code is almost blatant discrimination against the poor, which seems terrible. But I also feel fine dining restaurants should be allowed to create a reasonable atmosphere by denying service to those not dressing appropriately.

Yes, it is. The poor haven't had the legal right to full, equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, & accommodations at a place of public accommodation statutorily conferred upon them, meaning that if one can't afford a price of admission into a place of public accommodation, then they can then be legally discriminated against on that basis.

Another is workplace dress code. Some females may be required to wear heels. I am a cis-straight male, but I think forcing someone to wear uncomfortable and unhealthy shoes because of they are female is discrimination based on gender, and should be outlawed. But then, forcing females to wear anything different from males is also discrimination based on gender, and vice versa. If female are required to wear skirts, they should be able to sue it as discriminatory based on gender.

If I don't want to wear dress shoes, can I sue the dress code as discriminatory since females can wear a different type of shoes (heels in this case)? And if a company want to avoid this problem, can they just say anyone can choose to wear either dress shoes or heels regardless of gender, but nothing else?

This is why there'll always be something of a legitimate argument underlying the claim that sex-segregated dress codes should count as unlawful discrimination in & of themselves, even though they're widely accepted by society without complaint, because of their proneness to cause unbalanced injury; basically, separate, but not equal. For another example, ties can be quite uncomfortable; I write that off as mostly disingenuous whining from the patriarchy, but it can't be denied as an inherently bona-fide example of an unequal sex-based discriminatory injury, however minor a one it may actually be.

A stronger example, as you note, is to consider the flip-side thereof: a dress code that requires all female employees to wear high heels. Or imagine one requiring women to wear clothing accentuating their figure, while the men can just wear regular suits. In a world where women are notoriously treated unequally in the workplace re: hiring & salaries, any restriction forcing female employees to partition themselves from males could be an injury that amounts to discrimination.

[David Hume]

For example, some Muslim and Indians may like to wear their traditional clothes. But if a fine dinning restaurant enforce dress code that only allow suits, and deny entry of those wearing  traditional clothes. Can they be sued for discrimination against racial/religious minorities?

Yes, given that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in addition to numerous state laws) forbids discrimination by private businesses serving as places of public accommodation on either of those grounds. So, if one feels that such a place of public accommodation has discriminated against them on a legally relevant basis, then they may have a legitimate civil case to establish & then pursue to the fullest extent under all applicable laws, including the ability to claim any damages.

In some sense, dress code is almost blatant discrimination against the poor, which seems terrible. But I also feel fine dining restaurants should be allowed to create a reasonable atmosphere by denying service to those not dressing appropriately.

Yes, it is. The poor haven't had the legal right to full, equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, & accommodations at a place of public accommodation statutorily conferred upon them, meaning that if one can't afford a price of admission into a place of public accommodation, then they can then be legally discriminated against on that basis.

Another is workplace dress code. Some females may be required to wear heels. I am a cis-straight male, but I think forcing someone to wear uncomfortable and unhealthy shoes because of they are female is discrimination based on gender, and should be outlawed. But then, forcing females to wear anything different from males is also discrimination based on gender, and vice versa. If female are required to wear skirts, they should be able to sue it as discriminatory based on gender.

If I don't want to wear dress shoes, can I sue the dress code as discriminatory since females can wear a different type of shoes (heels in this case)? And if a company want to avoid this problem, can they just say anyone can choose to wear either dress shoes or heels regardless of gender, but nothing else?

This is why there'll always be something of a legitimate argument underlying the claim that sex-segregated dress codes should count as unlawful discrimination in & of themselves, even though they're widely accepted by society without complaint, because of their proneness to cause unbalanced injury; basically, separate, but not equal. For another example, ties can be quite uncomfortable; I write that off as mostly disingenuous whining from the patriarchy, but it can't be denied as an inherently bona-fide example of an unequal sex-based discriminatory injury, however minor a one it may actually be.

A stronger example, as you note, is to consider the flip-side thereof: a dress code that requires all female employees to wear high heels. Or imagine one requiring women to wear clothing accentuating their figure, while the men can just wear regular suits. In a world where women are notoriously treated unequally in the workplace re: hiring & salaries, any restriction forcing female employees to partition themselves from males could be an injury that amounts to discrimination.

But do you think fine dinning restaurants have some right to require customers follow some rules? For example, I think it is generally accepted that requiring customers to wear something and not be topless, regardless of gender, is acceptable. Can they go further to require not wearing some "inappropriate" clothes?

CRA title II bans public accommodations like restaurants to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin, but it did not ban discrimination against the poor. I am not sure if requiring western suits can be sued as discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

Another issue private clubs are exempt from CRA, but it did not define what is a private club. So a restaurant can claim itself as a private eating club. The membership is freely granted on site, as long as one wears western suits. Would/should this be legal?

[brucejoel99]

But do you think fine dinning restaurants have some right to require customers follow some rules? For example, I think it is generally accepted that requiring customers to wear something and not be topless, regardless of gender, is acceptable. Can they go further to require not wearing some "inappropriate" clothes?

In the status quo, fine-dining restaurants unquestionably have the legal right to require customers to dress to their liking. That's within legal reason. What they can't do is seek to do an end-run around anti-discrimination laws by claiming that something like a hijab is "inappropriate." In terms of one's civil rights, that's not even within the realm of legal reason.

CRA title II bans public accommodations like restaurants to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin, but it did not ban discrimination against the poor. I am not sure if requiring western suits can be sued as discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

I've never heard of a fine-dining restaurant explicitly requiring "western suits." It's usually just something along the lines of "formal attire," so as to encompass "formal" attires that are legally-permitted alternatives to "western" attire. I imagine that you might actually see somebody be able to make a legitimate "national origin" claim if a restaurant explicitly required "western" attire, & a "religion" claim on top of that if that requirement is one that comes with no exceptions whatsoever.

Another issue private clubs are exempt from CRA, but it did not define what is a private club. So a restaurant can claim itself as a private eating club. The membership is freely granted on site, as long as one wears western suits. Would/should this be legal?

No, of course not. This was settled within a year of the CRA's passage, when many businesses & facilities tried to argue exactly what you just inquired about: that they were technically "private clubs," so they were free to continue excluding African Americans. Thankfully, the courts responded by formulating a test to distinguish between truly "private" organizations & those that only claim to be: in order to be exempt from the CRA, a "private" club must truly reserve its facilities for members, & must have genuinely exclusive membership criteria; so, a club that would admit anybody who's not wearing a western suit wouldn't legally qualify for the exemption. Very few facilities ever qualify as truly "private," given that, to do so, the history & purpose of the club (including whether it was created to circumvent anti-discrimination laws), club advertising for members, membership control over & operation of the club for the benefit of members only, & for-profit status must all be considered. But, if membership in a "club" is clearly open to the general public, then it's still actually a "public accommodation" & not a "private club" for the purposes of federal & relevant state civil rights laws. Look at it this way: a bona-fide private organization that operates a restaurant which is open to the general public must nevertheless still abide by all relevant anti-discrimination laws, but a private organization that operates a restaurant open only to members of the organization itself (e.g., the Mar-a-Lago Club) could be exempted from abiding by the CRA.

[David Hume]

But do you think fine dinning restaurants have some right to require customers follow some rules? For example, I think it is generally accepted that requiring customers to wear something and not be topless, regardless of gender, is acceptable. Can they go further to require not wearing some "inappropriate" clothes?

In the status quo, fine-dining restaurants unquestionably have the legal right to require customers to dress to their liking. That's within legal reason. What they can't do is seek to do an end-run around anti-discrimination laws by claiming that something like a hijab is "inappropriate." In terms of one's civil rights, that's not even within the realm of legal reason.

CRA title II bans public accommodations like restaurants to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin, but it did not ban discrimination against the poor. I am not sure if requiring western suits can be sued as discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

I've never heard of a fine-dining restaurant explicitly requiring "western suits." It's usually just something along the lines of "formal attire," so as to encompass "formal" attires that are legally-permitted alternatives to "western" attire. I imagine that you might actually see somebody be able to make a legitimate "national origin" claim if a restaurant explicitly required "western" attire, & a "religion" claim on top of that if that requirement is one that comes with no exceptions whatsoever.

The problem is who is to define what can be considered as "formal attire"? What if I wear some weird clothes, but claim it is the "formal attire" of a tribe in a small countries in Africa?

[Schiff for Senate]

TO THE THREAD TITLE AND PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE OP:

Can they? Yes. Lawsuits abound nowadays at the slightest of grievances. (EDIT: To clarify, however, I fail to see any coherent argument against dress codes.)

Should they? Absolutely not. I've already articulated my position. There is no systematic discrimination specifically at Indians or Muslims and the rule is not made with that intent. You want to wear saris or kurta pajamas or hajibs, fine. You might just sometimes need to not wear it if you want to eat at a few particular restraunts, that's all. And at most restraunts you can still wear what you please and go. Dress codes are absolutely not racist - it's racist to suggest, instead, that all Indians and Muslims where such attire that they would not be permitted in restraunts with dress codes (not that the OP was at all trying to be racist, and I know that fully well, but if there's any racism in this whole thing, that would be racism - unconcious racism, or rather just a believe in a harmless stereotype, but I digress). Even many whites might not be wearing clothes needed for this particular restraunt. Whites and Indians alike can wear the appropriate clothes necessary to go to this restraunt, or simply not eat at it. There's also the point of intent - even poll taxes and literacy tests in the south that were obviously created to discriminate against African-Americans hurt African-Americans and poorer/less-educated whites alike, but the intent was obviously malignant and discriminatory. Just as obviously, discrimination is not the intent at all here. Any lawsuit against dress codes - which have long existed and will long exist - would hopefully get laughed out of court, and it would unless we're talking about some type of elected court in an extremely woke/liberal/progressive area.

[Schiff for Senate]

For example, some Muslim and Indians may like to wear their traditional clothes. But if a fine dinning restaurant enforce dress code that only allow suits, and deny entry of those wearing  traditional clothes. Can they be sued for discrimination against racial/religious minorities?

Yes, given that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in addition to numerous state laws) forbids discrimination by private businesses serving as places of public accommodation on either of those grounds. So, if one feels that such a place of public accommodation has discriminated against them on a legally relevant basis, then they may have a legitimate civil case to establish & then pursue to the fullest extent under all applicable laws, including the ability to claim any damages.

In some sense, dress code is almost blatant discrimination against the poor, which seems terrible. But I also feel fine dining restaurants should be allowed to create a reasonable atmosphere by denying service to those not dressing appropriately.

Yes, it is. The poor haven't had the legal right to full, equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, & accommodations at a place of public accommodation statutorily conferred upon them, meaning that if one can't afford a price of admission into a place of public accommodation, then they can then be legally discriminated against on that basis.

To your first point (about Indians/Muslims and dress codes) - a lawsuit could be filed but there would be no legitimate or credible case, and I say this as someone who is Indian-American and who, living in the Bay Area, has seen a lot of Indian-Americans wearing traditional Indian clothes. I sincerely hope no court would ever seriously rule dress codes as discriminatory, and I doubt they will unless the court is an elected, ultra-liberal/woke court.

To your second point - McDonald's and Taco Bell exist (and I am someone who eats at both places not very infrequently), and there are more than enough restraunts (fast-food, semiformal, whatever) that poor people could eat at. And let us not pretend that dress codes are the only thing stopping poor people from eating at certain upscale restraunts - the price alone would do that. With all due respect, I feel that anyone who is so poor that they don't have / can't afford the suit and tie and blazer and whatever else they might need could afford to eat at the restraunts that currently require them. If that's going to be the way it is, how 'bout sueing all restraunts with unreasonably high prices, like Cheescake Factory, for discriminating against the poor? We don't need to pretend that high prices are any less of a deterrant to poor people eating at certain restraunt than dress codes, and if you're suing against the one it's just as reasonable (i.e., not at all reasonable) to sue against the other.