Running head: Application of social theory 1

Application of social theory

Name

Year

Affiliation
Application of social theory 2

Introduction

In many contexts, courts have readily maintained that facially sex-based policies and

practices are illegal under Title VII. However, regarding the dress codes, the contrary has always

remained faithful. Despite the fact that it has been recognized by courts that dress codes

imposing sexually exploitative dress standards for either women or men are illegal, the very

dress code that differentiates women from men in terms of appearance has been found to be less

objectionable by courts (Leif, 2017). In a variety of contexts, there has been a rise in dress code

challenges. However, this paper will put much emphasis on instances where an employer makes

it mandatory for male and female employees to wear different dresses.

Despite the direct evidences of discrimination produced by these policies, and

clarification on the established unequal treatment law under Title VII, these dress codes have

been found to permissible according to courts (Wenar, 2017). This paper makes both a

prescriptive and a descriptive point concerning dress code jurisprudence. Descriptively, my first

argument is based on the factors of the dress code case law that exposes the fact that courts have

excessively depended on group anti subordination theory of equality and have ignored the first-

order principle of equality that individuals being unequally treated can be harmful even when

there is no illustratable group-based harm.

Current Office Policy  

Many problems linked to the present policy factors have been comprehensively defined

as per the changing employee needs. It has encouraged employers to impose policies that are

based on sex on employees, which has had a pernicious effect especially on the people whose
Application of social theory 3

gender cannot properly fit within the cultural boundaries (Ronald, 2009). Additionally,

foundational employment laws principles have been changed by dress code case law, and

equality theories whose impact that have evolved to fill the levels of equal rights laws have been

distorted as well.

New Articulation of group anti subordination purposes of anti-discriminatory laws has

overly persuaded courts upholding dress codes. This is based on the tremendous fact that none of

the Title VII languages has evolved in its application makes it mandatory to demonstrate group

subordinations (Ben, 2002).

The approach taken includes prohibiting the differentiation or classification of employees

based on sex, the first-generation approach is taken by the relevant title. Furthermore, title VII

makes it mandatory for direct evidence of variation in treatment. Perhaps, when limitations to the

first-generation studies are recognized, a second-generation analysis is permitted by title vii in

the form of a fallback for litigations, through encouraging burden-shifting in the absence of

direct evidence (Adam, 2006). The majority of the courts in the dress code context challenges

brought by title vii didn’t require a simple classification demonstration based on sex, in addition

to a group subordinating impact. This is so in spite of the doctrinal merger of both the first and

second principles of generations. In other words, deviating from the fundamental doctrine, it is

evident that the first-generation principles of dress codes cannot be applied by courts and instead

the courts have maintained a strong subordination. Subordinate effect examines other specific

understandings regarding the whole dress code formation because of the major aspects about the

overall dress code examination. Furthermore, subordination determines the deviation from the

ideal doctrine and a disparagement of the first initial generational principles.

Applying Social Theory to a Modern Office Problem

Anti-subordination theory provides an opportunity to determine various levels within

which to illustrate a better method to manage changing considerations for critical factors aiding

the organization but functioned differently. However, the ability of these theories to reexamine

and overlook the scope of the relevance of the present is a widely shared point that harm is part

of differentiation in treatment and should not be permitted by courts. In situations where second

generation anti subordination theories have swayed courts into holding that sex discrimination

challenges, the critical perspectives provide the ideal dress code policies and demonstration of

harm based on group. This position implies two architectural criticism of this theory (Douglas,

2002). Particularly, title VII blind spot supports a limiting principle when it comes to applying

such theories or it exposes serious and real errors in anti-subordination theories. Although my

objective is not to condemn the anti-subordination theories, this analysis proposes that “hard

cases make bad laws.” These cases have at minimum, introduced flawed theories inviting a

reform to provide for dress code cases that seem to be problematic. Furthermore, it may be

suggested by dress codes that anti subordination theories must be restricted to particular cases

from which they evolved, while leaving anti differentiation principles for others (Kymlicka,

1990). In other words, it is suggested by title vii blind spot that anti subordination theories have

to be restricted to cases that involve affirmative action or disparate impact, without putting much

emphasis on Anti differentiation.

Evaluation

Why differentiation can be regarded as problematic

This analysis is correct to the extent that it stresses that the principles of the second

generation should only apply to the very cases from which they evolved, without putting into

consideration the first generational principles – the following hypothesis illustrates why dress

code cases have been misguided. Imagine a situation where an employee permits their employees

to wear any cloth they wish to wear in the working environment, and places tags on their shirts

for purposes of indicating whether they are female or male. Imagine another employer, who

prescribes particular clothes basing on employee’s sex. This illustrates also constitutes employee

whose policy requires that women wear only dresses or skirts, wear make ups, have long hair and

long nails, and men to only wear tailored shirts, have trimmed nails, with short hair and not make

up. Every policy has an impact that conveys the individual employee’s sex. Each of these

policies makes it necessary to determine the sex of employees, including an external statement or

expression of it (Shaun, 2002). More importantly, in the sex tag illustration, what the employer

does not impose gender norm on the employees, but only needs a public indication of the

employee’s sex. The norm is expressed voluntarily to the extent that the gender norm is not

attached. In this illustration of dress code, the employer, on the other hand not only requires that

the employee identifies their sex, but also make it necessary for them to merge a particular norm

of gender (Cohen, 2009). The dress code illustration could be interpreted as more coercive than

the first example, if both examples are to quantitatively compare. The first example maintains

sex tag plus addition terms.

Lessons learned

When it comes to non-dress code context, it is readily acknowledged by courts that the

policies that are facially sex-based and practices have been defined and regarded to be unlawful

with regards to Title VII. However, in dress codes, the contrary proves to be true. On the broader

sex discrimination case law context, the persistent attitude of judicial freedom towards sex-based

dress codes is progressively becoming irregular, through there are no signs of it abating.

Conclusion

Over emphasizing anti subordination theories is one of the factors and argument that it

has prevented courts from realizing the discriminatory harms brought by sex-based dress codes,

in addition to skewing dress code case laws. One of the ways through the blind spot of the

doctrinal Title VII can be exposed is for litigants to tap from the analogy of reach to reveal the

harm brought by the labeling of sex differences in the work environment. According to the

analogy of race, it is harmful to label an employee’s sex since it facilitates the characteristics of a

sex as reasonable uniqueness in the working environment, which is addressed by Title VII.

Another step that can be considered is doing some legal education of specific cases about

distinctions between indirect and direct evidence, the legal doctrine has always been

misunderstood or ignored by the bar and bench. These approaches could prove more efficient

and effective, compared to the current seemingly popular sex theory of sex stereotyping, which

has generally failed to repeal the damaging effects of sex-based dress codes on workers. The

strategy could also do much in the advancement of the right contemplation of the links between

anti subordination and formal theories of equality.

References

Wenar, Leif (2017). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy(Spring 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Wenar, Leif (2013-01-01). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). John Rawls (Winter 2013 ed.).

Martin, Douglas (26 November 2002). "John Rawls, Theorist on Justice, Is Dead at

82". NY Times.

Ronald J. Sider; Paul Charles Kemeny; Derek H. Davis; Clarke E. Cochran; Corwin

Smidt (2009). Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. p. 34. Religious

beliefs, argues John Rawls—a Harvard philosopher and self- identifying atheist—can be so

divisive in a pluralistic culture that they subvert the stability of a society.

Swift, Adam (2006). Political philosophy: a beginners' guide for students and

politicians (Second edition, revised and expanded ed.). Cambridge: Polity. p. 10. 

 Rogers, Ben (2002-11-27). "Obituary: John Rawls". The Guardian. The Guardian. 

Will., Kymlicka (1990). Contemporary political philosophy: an introduction. Oxford

[England]: Clarendon Press. p. 11

Young, Shaun (2002). Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America. p. 59

Joshua Cohen and Thomas Nagel, "John Rawls: On My Religion", Times Literary

Supplement, 18 March 2009

The Heritage Foundation. "John Rawls: Theorist of Modern Liberalism".  13 August

2014.