Lawyer claims she was fired over memo on 'suggestive' work clothing

A century after Emmeline Pankhurst and her suffragettes began their struggle for universal equality, a 36-year-old lawyer went to court yesterday to fight for the right to wear a short skirt or expose a bare midriff in the office.

A century after Emmeline Pankhurst and her suffragettes began their struggle for universal equality, a 36-year-old lawyer went to court yesterday to fight for the right to wear a short skirt or expose a bare midriff in the office.

The case is expected to have implications for what all women wear to work and could lead to the abolition of the corporate dress code.

Maxine Kelly, who is bringing the legal challenge, was one of 50 women working at a Midlands law firm to be sent a memo last year forbidding them from wearing dresses and skirts that were "revealing" or "suggestive".

The list of banned clothing included dresses or skirts worn above the knee, low-cut tops or any garment that exposed the midriff. It also extended to clothes "which are in any way tight, whether trousers, skirts or blouses" and visible tattoos and "any body piercings other than conventional earrings worn in the lower lobe."

All staff were asked to sign the code and warned that a breach could result in the offender being sent home or even disciplinary action.

Ms Kelly - who chooses to wear blouses and skirts to work - was told that she was one of the lawyers whose style of dress had triggered the memo. But when she tried to comply with the new code, she claims that she was sacked.

Yesterday Ms Kelly, who is suing the Burton-on-Trent law firm Advance Legal for sex discrimination and victimisation, said: "I was astounded to receive a memo which I saw as a clear affront to women. I made my objections known and I feel this led to my being dismissed unfairly."

Ms Kelly was particularly angered that the memo only applied to women and that a few weeks later the men in the office were sent an e-mail giving them permission to loosen their ties and pull up their shirt sleeves in hot weather.

The case - adjourned yesterday to be heard later in the year at a Leicester employment tribunal - is the latest in a long line of sex discrimination claims brought by professional women who feel that their conservative employers are out of step with modern working practices.

Maxine Kelly's boss, Sean Kehoe, senior partner at Advance Legal, defended his firm's dress code.

He told The Independent: "It is not strict but something that is a normal for a conventional business. We were getting people coming to work dressed sloppily in clothes only for going out in. So my PA sent another memo around the office and just mentioned to her (Maxine Kelly) that she was one who had to take notice."

The memo read: "I hope this has been suitably clear for everyone but as Sean has stated in the past, more than once, we come to the office to work, not to make any kind of fashion statement or to stand out in any way or to be noticed in the wrong sense."

Mr Kehoe said that Ms Kelly's dismissal had nothing to do with what she wore to work. He added: "She was simply not up to the job." Mr Kehoe said he was in America at the time of Ms Kelly's dismissal, which was carried out "perfectly properly" by a senior female partner in the firm. Ms Kelly insists that it was her objections to the dress code that prompted her dismissal, even though she had spent £300 on a new wardrobe in an attempt to comply with the new rules.

She said: "I can't believe I worked for an employer with such archaic attitudes and a scant disregard for women's rights. You would have expected more from a law firm who should at least have an appreciation for equality laws.

"I'm relieved that I am now employed by a law firm with an excellent equal opportunities policy, which makes me all the more determined to highlight the appalling management practices of my former employer by taking this legal action."

Ms Kelly's lawyer, Jeff Zindani of Forum Law, said Advance Legal faced a second claim from a junior member of staff who was also sacked.

He added: "We see Maxine's dismissal as a clear example of an employer trying to shut up a woman who would not toe the party line - an outmoded notion of women knowing their place in the workplace pecking order and not standing up for their rights.

"Maxine performed well in her new role at Advance Legal and there were no indications of poor performance, the reasons given for her dismissal. We can only conclude that she was victimised and treated less favourably because of her sex and we hope to prove this in bringing this case."

SO, WHAT CAN YOU WEAR TO WORK?

INDUSTRY (Shell)

"If a person's dress was distracting people it's up to the line manager todo something about it."

ACCOUNTANCY (PriceWaterhouse Coopers)

"We expect smart business dress."

HEALTH (Manchester Royal Infirmary)

"Doctors wear the white coat and stethoscope that people expect."

EDUCATION (Lambeth Local Education Authority)

"If there ever were a problem with dress, then the headteacher could get involved."

MEDIA (the BBC)

"Anybody in the public eye would have to dress appropriately."

RETAIL (Harrods)

"Skirts should be knee length, but we recognise that hem lines rise and fall with fashion."

ROYALTY (Buckingham Palace)

"I've never seen a tattoo or piercing here, but it's up to the individual if they have one or not."

ARMED FORCES (Ministry of Defence)

"Celtic and Rangers football shirts are banned for off-duty soldiers in Northern Ireland."