I became aware of a workplace situation where a few women in a male-dominated department were required to “dress to kill” and wear dresses and heels to an event. If you don’t already feel a little queasy reading that, it gets worse. One of these employees—who never wears dresses or heels and with limited funds or time to source these items—felt too afraid to speak up to her superior about how wrong it felt for fear of losing her job. Instead, she went shopping for dresses. I’m not judging her for this. Making the best out of an uncomfortable situation due to fear of repercussions is what women have been doing for generations. Sure, when you compare the request to wear a dress and heels to an event to something as serious as sexual harassment or gender discrimination, it may seem minor at first, but both stem from the same systemic issue: the control and policing of women in professional spaces. They reinforce a power dynamic where women’s appearance is prioritized over their expertise, where compliance is expected, and where nonconformity carries consequences. Look closely, and you’ll see—it’s not much different.

Ickiness aside (and it’s so, so gross—a question asked by another staff member was whether the men also had specific dressing requirements), there’s the illegality of what was being asked. It couldn’t possibly be legal, right? To get expert advice, I contacted my friend and client, California-based lawyer, Jamie Rudman, who practices employment law for Sanchez and Amador, and chairs The National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, to offer her legal expertise.

Rudman quickly confirmed that the whole situation was unsettling, uncomfortable—and illegal. She explained that in California, it’s explicitly banned to require women to wear anything with a skirt. Beyond that, general employment laws across the U.S. prohibit people from being treated differently based on gender. Requiring women to wear dresses and heels is a textbook example of gender-based discrimination. She said, “You can require people to buy professional clothing. That’s fine. That applies to both genders. But requiring women to buy something specific they wouldn’t ordinarily wear could be considered problematic under those laws.”

She pointed to the Peltier v. Charter Day School case in North Carolina, where a court ruled that young women couldn’t be forced to wear attire that “made them look female.” The Federal Court of Appeals determined that the dress code violated the young women’s civil rights, and when the school appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court declined to hear the case—meaning the lower court’s ruling stands. It is illegal to require different dress codes for different genders.

Another legal issue? The potential financial burden. Rudman noted, “[The company] may also be causing the women to incur a business expense.” She explained that a wardrobe is typically not considered a business expense. However, when an employer mandates specific attire—effectively creating a uniform—the company is legally required to pay for it, at least in California. I couldn’t help but think of this woman, already strapped for cash, shelling out money for a dress she would never wear again or buy if given the choice.

And what about the requirement to wear heels? Rudman agreed that this could potentially violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We imagined a scenario where a woman needed a doctor’s note to opt out of heels or faced workplace consequences for choosing flats instead. It’s absurd to think that an employee might have to involve a medical professional simply to avoid wearing footwear that could cause them pain or injury. Yet in today’s climate, it’s not unthinkable.

Certainly, a company can enforce dress codes and even mandate specific types of footwear or other protective clothing when it relates to safety regulations or OSHA requirements. However, requiring women to wear something that men don’t? That’s illegal. In United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, courts upheld that safety-based dress requirements must be applied uniformly, regardless of gender. Similarly, in Jesperson v. Harrah’s Operating Co., a case involving gender-based grooming standards, the court acknowledged that employers must ensure policies do not impose unequal burdens on employees based on gender. Yet, these mandates persist—not out of necessity, but out of an outdated expectation that women’s appearance should be subject to additional scrutiny. While safety-related dress codes are legally enforceable, gender-specific appearance mandates are not.

As Rudman put it, “It’s a requirement that a woman has that a man doesn’t. ‘I have to dress to kill’, which implies I have to be out there, using my physical appearance. And let’s be honest—this wasn’t just about wearing a dress. If the company’s concern was simply ‘professional attire,’ any professional outfit would do. But would they be satisfied if these women showed up in loose-fitting, full-length dresses with high necklines? Likely not.” The unspoken expectation seemed clear: femininity means attractiveness, and attractiveness means showing skin.

WHERE IS THIS HEADING?

Legal ramifications aside, Rudman and I worry about where requests like this are heading. Under this administration, women are more vulnerable than ever. DEI programs—while designed to support all marginalized groups, have disproportionately (and unfortunately) benefited white women over women of color—are being dismantled. Reproductive rights are being chipped away. And if Project 2025 becomes a reality, the implications for gender equality could be devastating. Legal precedents set today can shape workplace policies for decades, making it easier for companies to justify outdated gender norms under the guise of professionalism.

Rudman expressed, “My biggest concern is where this is going in the future. We know that the MAGA camp likes their women to have a certain look. Whether you like that look or not, that’s the look they want, and we could see some employers encouraging women to wear it.” She worries that the current Supreme Court, with its conservative tilt, could justify gendered dress codes under the guise of “traditional women’s dress.” In other words, companies could get the green light to require women to wear skirts and heels under the banner of “professionalism.”

It doesn’t stop there. With trans rights under attack and a president who has publicly declared that there are only two sexes, what’s to stop companies from pushing employees to conform to dress codes based on their assigned sex at birth? We’ve already seen this happening in school dress codes, like the Peltier v. Charter Day School case in North Carolina that Rudman cited earlier. Meanwhile, some states are advancing policies restricting gender-neutral dress codes in schools and workplaces under the guise of ‘traditional values.’ These legal shifts create a dangerous precedent for employers to follow, tightening gender norms in ways that could have lasting consequences. What if they start mandating that transgender or non-binary employees present in a way that aligns with outdated, binary gender norms? Imagine a transgender man or non-binary individual, assigned female at birth, being forced to wear skirts and heels because their employer refuses to recognize their gender identity. Or a transgender woman being prohibited from wearing traditionally feminine attire in a workplace that enforces rigid, outdated expectations. These scenarios are not far-fetched—they are very real risks in a legal and political landscape that is increasingly hostile to gender nonconformity.

California, at least, explicitly protects against discrimination based on gender expression. Rudman noted, “I can wear all the man-tailored anything I want, and a man can come to my business meetings in a dress if that’s what makes him happy. And obviously, a transgender person can choose their own adventure—that’s the whole point. You can certainly enforce professionalism standards, but you can’t say that a man in a dress is unprofessional if you’re saying it’s okay for women.” But many states don’t have these protections. And as we’ve seen time and again, progress is not guaranteed.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

The fight for gender equality in the workplace doesn’t always come in the form of headline-making scandals or overt discrimination. More often, it shows up in these seemingly small moments—these quiet, insidious impositions on how women should look, behave, and present themselves. Today, it’s a dress and heels. Tomorrow, it could be something worse.

The burden shouldn’t be on women to comply or navigate these impossible double standards in silence. It should be on employers to do better, on lawmakers to hold them accountable, and on all of us to refuse to let this slide. If we don’t fight these small battles now, we may wake up one day and realize we’ve lost the war. Knowing your rights is the first step. If you’re facing a similar situation, document everything, seek legal counsel, and don’t be afraid to challenge policies that violate the law. And for those in positions of power—HR professionals, managers, business leaders—this is your call to action to create workplaces that respect autonomy over antiquated dress codes because workplace policies should be about professionalism and fairness—not control.