Express yourself, but dress for success: Navigating workplace fashion

Freedom of expression includes the right to be heard, participate in society, and express oneself freely. American writer Susan Sontag famously stated that "an individual's manner of appearing is also their manner of being," suggesting that clothing choices might be an extension of self-expression.

However, this right tends to clash with workplace dress codes. While employers can legally enforce dress codes to maintain a specific image, the freedom to choose clothing is linked to personal identity. This creates a complex issue: where does expressing oneself through clothing (fashion) meet workplace professionalism? Contract law grants employers the power to impose dress codes, potentially limiting self-expression. These rules aim to project a desired image or cultivate a particular workplace atmosphere. However, overly restrictive dress codes might be challenged based on freedom of expression.

The line isn't absolute. The case of Boychuck v Symons established a balancing test between employer control and employee self-expression. Similarly, the European Human Rights Commission argued in Stevens v United Kingdom that clothing can be a form of artistic expression, and thus potentially protected under freedom of speech.

Company dress codes often reflect societal norms, potentially clashing with individual expression and social acceptance. The fashion industry, for example, is becoming more gender-fluid, challenging traditional clothing expectations. This suggests that what employers once deemed "professional" might now be outdated and even harm their image.

South African author DJ Vivers argues that restricting self-expression through clothing infringes on the right to personal dignity, a constitutionally protected right. However, Alan Rycroft offers a contrasting view, stating employers have the discretion to implement dress codes based on their target demographic.

Dress codes in employment contracts must be necessary and relevant to the occupation. In Catharell v Glynn Nuttal Ltd, the court ruled that an employee has the right to determine their hairstyle unless it negatively impacts the business. Similarly, if an employee's clothing choices don't hinder the business, they should have some freedom of expression. The key question is thus whether an employee's style harms the business image. Employers cannot impose dress codes based on personal preference; the code must be instrumental to the business' functioning. Any other restrictions could be seen as unreasonable limitations on self-expression.

DJ Vivers further argues that self-expression extends to appearance, which is linked to individuality. Appearance-based restrictions infringe on both the right to dignity and freedom of expression. Marius Pieterse emphasizes how clothing reflects self-perception, pride and worth, as well as societal standing. It follows then that clothing choices are an important means of self-expression deserving protection under South Africa's Constitution.