The office is having casual days the next 2 days, saying that we are only allowed to wear official Brewers gear. My question is: Is this legal? Is this not prejudiced? I understand that sports are a simple issue, but there are arguments to be made that sports is the new tribalism, and limiting casual day only to those who favor a certain worldview is inherently biased.
Thoughts? Legal precedents? Surely some insane sports fan must have taken their office to court at one time or another...
The office e-mail does indeed specify "official Brewers gear," which struck me as odd. I can't wear a shirt that I made where I pressed the logo on myself?
Yes, there are bigger issues to be had. But these kind of minor irks - especially within the confines of a draconian office atmosphere - can drive people insane.
Related Information
- Georgia’s tale: when Sunderland/Newcastle tribalism loses meaning | Salut! Sunderland
- Spartacus: Blood & Sand “Revelations” Review Recap Analysis | Word Bribery
- The Volokh Conspiracy » A Quick Response to Randy on the Use of “Unprecedented”
 LSU Tigers Umbrella from Team Golf List Price: See Reviews For This Product  |
 MacGregor Team Roller Equipment Bag List Price: See Reviews For This Product |
 MLB St. Louis Cardinals Kid's Team Uniform Set List Price: Sale Price: $22.50 You save: $12.49 (36%)  Eligible for free shipping!See Reviews For This Product |
Norwich chief executive David McNally insists his club are on a firm footing despite Grant Holt’s request to leave Carrow Road.
The 31-year-old talisman’s transfer request was rejected by the Canaries on Friday following a superb first season in the Premier League, following speculation linking Norwich manager Paul Lambert with vacant positions elsewhere. However, chief executive McNally took to Twitter on Saturday in a bid to calm supporters about the club’s future. “We did receive a transfer request from Grant Holt yesterday [Friday]. It was rejected immediately,” McNally said. “At our club, we deal with the out-of-contract players first of all when each season ends. “We then deal with players where the club may have an option to extend their contracts. This season, there are several in this category.
Spain’s Rafael Nadal eased into the final of the Italian Open with a straight-sets 7-6 (8-6) 6-0 victory against David Ferrer in Rome.
Nadal was made to work hard in the opening set by a battling Ferrer.
But once he took it in the tie-break, he did not allow his compatriot a route back into the match and wrapped up the second set without dropping a game.
Nadal will meet either Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic, who meet in Saturday’s other semi-final.
More to follow.
England’s Richard Finch shocked German world number nine Martin Kaymer to advance to the last 16 of the World Match Play at Finca Cortesin, Spain.
Finch, ranked 218 in the world, recorded a one-hole win over the number one seed to become the seventh UK player to reach the second round.
Ian Poulter, Tom Lewis, Graeme McDowell, Paul Lawrie, Robert Rock and Justin Rose are all through.
But Open champion Darren Clarke has gone out.
Clarke, who has failed to survive a halfway cut this season, lost twice on Friday, by two holes to Rock and 64 to Rose.
In the morning session, Lewis’s one-hole win over John Senden secured his and defending champion Poulter’s… Continue reading Finch shocks Kaymer at Match Play
Related posts:
- is it ok for people to wear sports team apparel without watching or knowing anything about that sport?
- Which sports team sells the most sports apparel worldwide?
- ideas for sports team apparel???
- where can i order sports apparel for my varsity xc team?
- Who is top selling Sports team in terms of apparel sales???
This is NOT a protected class under anti-discrimination laws. (i.e., clothing). I question, however, the position that you "are only allowed to wear official Brewers gear." I assume you meant that IF you are going to wear team gear it can only be Brewers. Unless the employer is providing the Brewers gear to all employees or requiring it (so therefore it is an unreimbursed employee expense for tax deduction purposes) then I think you can get around the whole issue by wearing non-team gear.
It is prejudiced, but remember that prejudice/discrimination in the work place is only illegal for certain things (sex, race, religion, etc). Sports team is NOT a protected class. The office can tell you not to wear things from other sports teams if they want (although it seems silly and dumb to me).
EEOC has no protected classification for "teams". It’s not prejudice.
It’s a support for a team and a city. Go along; or don’t.
Thoughts? I’d figure most people in a city support the local team and have bigger issues in their lives than fighting a casual day gear issue. I worked in Dilbert’s "cube Hell" for 5 years as well in a big city. Just do it.
Offices always have the legal right to tell you what is acceptable wear in that office. Some companies won’t allow facial hair, earrings or any other piercings or any visible tattoo’s.
It’s the "Right" of the owner to have in their office what they want when it comes to clothing and appearance. Otherwise, some might show up in clothing that would be unacceptable for the office.
It is legal for them to decide what is an is not acceptable for their employee’s to wear. Casual day is a privelege and not a right. In every office i know, they have rules to casual dress. No court would have the right to find for a person who doesnt’ want to dress in a sports gear as your option of fully dressing as usual for the day is still an option. Many jobs make you buy your own clothing to work at it and it has to meet a standard. Go to any restraunts? Most of them have to buy a certain type of pants and shirts to be able to work there. The business does not have to reinburse them either. It’s a choice to work at a company, one that you can easily leave if you don’t like their dress codes. It’s not your "right" to work there.
Personally, i think dressing like any other day on those two days will say quite a bit about you not being a "team player" which is what they might be looking at when they made this decision.
Yes, that is legal.
Odd, but legal.