high heel requirement at work?

Lesley McKeown mckeownl at voyager.co.nz
Sun Feb 4 21:45:13 EST 1996

Sarah L. Pallas <spallas at bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>In article <aweber-3001962227270001 at toyon-95-248.stanford.edu> ,
>aweber at amy5.stanford.edu writes:
>>>Also, I'm thinking that in today's legal climate, an employee who had a
>>>heel requirement imposed on her, and who then developed foot problems,
>>>have grounds for a workers compensation suit.  (I remember a case of
>>>someone got $5000 because her finger was injured from repetitive key
>>>over 30 years of working as a grocery cashier, so stranger things have
>>>happened in legal la la land.)
>As someone who has just spent 2 months recovering from foot surgery, and
>who still can't wear shoes, I'd say you'd have to give me a whole lotta
>money to make it worth keeping that job (not to mention the other obvious
>shortcomings of a sexist job requirement).  In my case the foot problem
>was due to bad genes (thanks mom) and not high heels, but high heels will
>give you the same problem.  Ouch.
>Sarah Pallas (wondering what I will wear on my feet for my job interviews
>this month...)

Nothing wrong with a dress code - a guy is expeced to wear a tie - at 
least you can slip your shoes off under the boardroom table - better than 
being choked by some fashionable noose! Besides, at 5'2", thank god for 
high heels, otherwise I'd be staring at my colleagues' ties!!

Lesley McKeown.
PS - don't forget the Neatfeet.

More information about the Womenbio mailing list