10

There is a cashier position in a local supermarket, but they've said that for the moment they have no male uniforms and that I should try again in the future! The uniform is in my opinion fairly unisex; trousers as opposed to a skirt, plain blouse (which looks like a shirt) and a cardigan. I have no problem wearing this uniform and need the job. I'm fairly slight of build, so don't think sizing should be a problem. How do I stand on this?

closed as off-topic by Jim G., Lilienthal, scaaahu, IDrinkandIKnowThings, mcknz Oct 16 '15 at 3:55

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Jim G., Lilienthal, scaaahu, IDrinkandIKnowThings, mcknz
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

13

This is a borderline legal issue. In the US, you can not be turned down for a job based on your sex. They are turning you down because you are a male. Not having a male uniform is their issue, not yours. In my opinion, that sounds like sex discrimination.

You should consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction, if you feel the position is worth fighting for. However, lawyers/courts do cost money and there is no guarantee of a positive outcome. And do you really want to work at a place you took to court?

  • 2
    A cheaper solution is if you have evidence that this is the case a trade union would be interested – Ed Heal Oct 10 '15 at 6:11
  • Difficult legal question. As described, it's not the gender that's the problem, but the lack of uniforms. No idea what a judge or a jury would think about it. Now if the problem is that they have never designed a male version of that uniform and will for the foreseeable future not be able to supply one, that would a strong argument against them. – gnasher729 Oct 10 '15 at 21:40
  • 2
    @gnasher729 It is a gender issue. They claim they are not able to hire a male. That is a gender issue. But as noted above, this is a case for lawyers. – yo' Oct 12 '15 at 14:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.