The Importance of Dressing Equitably

Equity Uncle
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
Dear Equity Uncle,
 
People tell me that tights are not pants. I say I can wear what I want in public and shouldn’t have to face judgement for it. That includes moots and presentations. Tell me please: are tights pants for the purposes of ‘business attire’?
 
Anon
 
Dear Anon,
 
The Court of Chancery did not prepare Equity for this.
 
In light of earlier gender controversies in this paper, Equity should be careful to avoid blazing gender trails. Yet, being so concerned with unconscionability, the ‘tights’ question is of great importance to Equity.
 
The strict legal doctrines of the common law, so protective of fundamental freedoms, do allow you to wear tights – you can wear what you like in public, and nobody can do anything about it.
 
But in this as in all things, Equity assuages the injustices of the common law. Equity will consider your tights pants for the purposes of ‘business attire’, provided that it is not unconscionable to do so. Unfortunately, it is unconscionable to do so because tights are not pants.
 
And as for the jegging ... Equity will allow neither a statute nor a garment to be a cloak for fraud: Equity abhors the jegging.
 
Equity has traditionally worn a robe so as to make it impossible to tell what Equity is wearing. If it were up to Equity, everyone would wear robes.
 
Equity Uncle
 
Equity Uncle