This Brit woman started a revolution after being sent home for not wearing heels to work

What do heels have to do with someone's professional competency? Photo Courtesy: Twitter/OpedicShoeLift

There's an old saying that says: Dress for the job you want, not the one you have. This adage especially stands true for the corporate world, where employees are expected to adhere to certain dress codes in a bid to look "professional".

And if for some reason, an employee doesn't adhere to this dress code, what do you think an organisation should do? Issue warnings, right? However things took a rather strange turn for UK-based Nicola Thorp, when she was sent home for not wearing heels.

On her first day at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in 2015, Thorp was told to swap her flat shoes for a pair with a 2-inch to 4-inch heels. When she said that the demand was discriminatory, she was ridiculed. Not to mention, her employers sent her home without pay after she refused to go and buy a pair of heels.

The 28-year-old working professional didn't back down, and filed a petition with the UK government to make mandatory high heels at work illegal. Petitions to the British government need to gain at least 10,000 signatures to get a response, and Thorp's petition has received 1,52,420 so far.

The UK parliament opened an investigation resulting in a study, which found that women are being told to wear high heels, revealing dresses, and dye their hair blonde to secure their jobs.

"We heard from hundreds of women who told us about the pain and long-term damage caused by wearing high heels for long periods in the workplace, as well as from women who had been required to dye their hair blonde, to wear revealing outfits and to constantly reapply make-up," the report said.

The report has also recommended a publicity campaign be launched to ensure that employers know their legal obligations and workers know how they can complain effectively. MPs have now called for a new law against imposing sexist dress codes at workplaces, and a debate in Parliament will take place in March.

Sometimes men suffer when they have to wear blazers and ties in June, just like women do when they have strut from one meeting room to another in shoes that are just not made for walking. Dress codes are one thing--but to discriminate against someone just because they refuse to wear tight pencil skirts or stilettoes is completely ridiculous. How is someone's competency related to their dress, shoes, or even make-up?

Shouldn't offices try to make to make their environment more inclusive, which would actually motivate more women to have a professional life? A sexist environment can never lead to progress--or profits--and that's what offices everywhere need to understand.

Here's to hoping that Thorp's case would actually bring a wave of change.