Woman wins $38,000 payout after workplace fired her for wearing specific type of shoes on shift
A woman who was fired from work for wearing a specific type of footwear has won almost $38,000 in compensation.
Elizabeth Benassi, 20, from the UK, sued her former employer after she was dismissed following three months in her role as an employment advisor.
Benassi was 18 when she began working for Maximus UK Services in 2022, but her time at the company was short-lived when she wore trainers to work.
Advert
After being told not to wear the sneakers by her manager, Ishrat Ashraf, Benassi later sent an email to her boss, explaining: "This morning you mentioned that I am not allowed to wear trainers to work.
"Despite not being aware of this, as I have never worn trainers to work before, I apologised for this and you rolled your eyes.
"I have now realised am not the only one wearing trainers today and I have not seen anyone receive the same chat that I have."
The issue was escalated to management and Benassi was told again that her footwear was not acceptable.
Benassi, however, claimed she was not made aware of the policy and that other staff members also wearing similar footwear had not received the same treatment.
Meanwhile, a separate incident later that day saw Benassi ask if it was 'ok to go to the toilet' in front of a client.
This reportedly left colleagues 'extremely embarrassed', however, the tribunal noted that as Benassi was 'being closely monitored', it did not seem 'remarkable that she should ask such a question'.
"Perhaps what was embarrassing was what it said about her working environment," said employment judge, Eoin Fowell.
After just three months at the company, Benassi was dismissed, with her bosses explaining her failure to wear 'appropriate office attire' was one of the reasons she did not pass her probationary period, as well as concerns over performance.
However, Benassi went on to sue them for victimisation. Although her employer argued that other members of staff wearing trainers were given permission to do so due to a 'sore foot', a tribunal panel ultimately disagreed with the company and Benassi was awarded £29,187 ($36,684) compensation by a tribunal in Croydon, London.
"Had that been the case, Ms Ashraf would no doubt have mentioned it at the time in her email in response," said Fowell.
"So, Ms Benassi was immediately and unfairly tackled about this on arrival at the office.
"No allowance was made for the fact that she was new and may not have been familiar with the dress code.
"It was therefore a clear unfairness, and indicates a desire to find fault."
Lucy Devine