Jessica JohnsonTarget Corporation is rolling out a stricter dress code for its roughly 400,000 store employees across all 2,000 US locations this summer — plain red shirts and blue jeans or khakis, uniform across the chain. Announced on March 20, 2026, the policy is part of incoming CEO Brian Cornell's brand refresh strategy. But for workers and employers alike, it raises a question that goes far beyond retail: what are the legal limits of workplace dress codes in the United States?
The new rule requires solid red shirts with sleeves (any shade except orange or pink), khaki or blue denim bottoms, and closed-toe shoes. Employees must purchase compliant clothing themselves, as Target does not plan to provide uniforms. The rollout begins in summer 2026 across all stores.
Can Your Employer Dictate What You Wear?
In the United States, the answer is: mostly yes — with important exceptions.
Employers generally have broad authority to implement dress codes and appearance standards as long as those policies are applied consistently and do not unlawfully discriminate. Courts have consistently upheld dress codes as a legitimate exercise of employer prerogative, particularly in customer-facing retail environments where brand identity is at stake.
However, that authority has clear limits under federal and state law. Understanding where those limits lie is essential — whether you are an employee asked to comply, or a business owner designing your own policy.
Religious Accommodation: The Most Common Legal Line
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must provide reasonable accommodation for an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs — including beliefs about dress or grooming — unless doing so would cause undue hardship to the business.
For Target's new red-shirt policy, this creates a real-world question. An employee whose religious practice requires modest dress, head coverings, or specific colors may have grounds to request an accommodation — for example, wearing a red hijab or a compliant red outer layer over religious garments. An employer who refuses without assessing the accommodation request could face a discrimination claim.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received more than 4,300 religious accommodation charges in 2024, many relating to dress and grooming. Employment lawyers advise that the safest course for any employer is to establish a written accommodation request process before a new dress code takes effect.
Disability Accommodations and Dress Codes
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) creates a parallel obligation. If an employee has a disability that prevents compliance with a specific dress code element — for example, a requirement for closed-toe shoes that conflicts with a medical need for orthopedic footwear — the employer must engage in an "interactive process" to find a reasonable solution.
Ignoring a documented medical need for an accommodation in order to enforce uniform compliance can expose an employer to ADA liability. An employment lawyer can help businesses craft policies that include clear accommodation pathways.
What About the Cost of the Uniform?
Target employees will need to purchase their own red shirts and approved bottoms. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and many state wage laws, employers can require employees to purchase uniforms — but cannot do so if those costs would bring the employee's net pay below the federal or state minimum wage.
With Target's national minimum hourly rate currently above $15, uniform costs of $30–$60 for compliant clothing are unlikely to breach this threshold for most workers. However, in states with higher minimum wages and specific deduction rules — such as California and New York — employers face additional restrictions on when and how they can require uniform purchases. Workers in those states should verify their state labor board's specific rules.
Can Employees Refuse to Comply?
An employee who refuses to follow a lawful, non-discriminatory dress code policy risks disciplinary action, up to and including termination. In most US states, employment is "at-will," meaning an employer can fire an employee for any reason that does not violate a protected characteristic.
That said, unions complicate the picture. Dress code changes that affect terms and conditions of employment may need to be bargained with a union before implementation. Any retailer or business owner navigating this in a unionized environment should consult an employment attorney before announcing changes.
What the Target Case Means for Other Businesses
Target's move is a reminder that dress codes, when poorly designed or abruptly rolled out, can create legal exposure. Best practices for any employer implementing or updating a dress code include:
- Publish the policy in writing — ideally in the employee handbook — with an effective date that gives employees reasonable time to comply
- Include an accommodation request procedure for religious and disability-related exceptions
- Apply the policy consistently — selective enforcement is a discrimination risk
- Train managers on how to handle accommodation requests and avoid retaliatory responses
- Review state-specific rules on uniform costs, grooming standards, and wage deductions
The Bigger Picture: Dress Codes as Business Strategy vs. Worker Rights
Proponents of uniform dress codes argue they create a more professional customer experience, reduce decision fatigue for workers, and strengthen brand recognition. Target's choice of red shirts makes employees instantly identifiable on the floor — a practical concern in large-format stores.
Critics note that forcing low-wage workers to spend their own money on uniforms, even modest amounts, is an implicit cost shift that falls hardest on part-time employees and those working near minimum wage.
In the US legal framework, both perspectives are valid — and the resolution lies in the specifics: what does the policy say, how is it enforced, and do workers have a clear path to raise concerns?
An employment lawyer can advise workers on whether a new workplace policy crosses a legal line, and can advise employers on how to roll out changes in a way that minimizes legal risk while achieving legitimate business goals.
Note: This article provides general information about US employment law and is not a substitute for personalised legal advice. Employment law varies significantly by state.
Sources: Bloomberg – Target dress code announcement, March 20, 2026; EEOC – Religious Discrimination charges 2024
