When the parties are at bargaining impasse, the FSIP will look at the circumstances surrounding each party's position in determining a resolution. Recently it decided a dress code dispute at a DVA facility that required among other things, that male employees who had contact with the public must wear ties, and even those with no public contact could not wear "athletic clothing," such as sweatshirts with logos. The FSIP in this case reasoned that "the wearing of ties by its male employees with public contact is a practice that has become the norm in Government service and in the private sector." 92 FSIP No. 161, February 25, 1993. 

Arbitrators will look to a contract or agency policy when determining disputes involving dress or appearance. For instance, an arbitratory reviewed the Border Patrol's policy on beards, finding that beards were allowed under very narrow circumstances. In this case, a request for permission to grow a beard because of a skin condition that made shaving difficult was allowable under the parties' contract. Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Border Patrol and Local 1929, AFGE, LAIRS No. 21150, Mar. 23, 1993. 

With minor exceptions, the Merit Systems Protection Board case law on an employee's responsibility to obey an order, including one related to appearance, is clear. An often-cited case on insubordination is Gragg v. Air Force, 13 M.S.P.R. 296 (1982), which concerned an employee's refusal to shave his beard as ordered because he thought the order violated his labor contract. The Board found he should have obeyed the order, even though he thought it was improper, but it also found removal too severe a penalty, in light of the employee's legitimate concerns about the deference due the negotiated agreement. Mr. Gragg's appeal to the Federal Circuit was dismissed, Gragg v. U.S., 717 F.2d 1343, (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

Most disputes relating to an employee's dress or hygiene are tied to an individual set of circumstances. That is, a particular individual is dressing inappropriately at work, or failing to attend to rudimentary hygiene, and informal counseling has already been attempted and failed. Supervisors may order an employee to correct a problem that has an impact on the workplace, and intentional failure to follow such an order will probably be viewed as insubordination, which may form the basis of discipline. The cited impact might be workplace disruption, or harm to the image of the agency or the Government before outsiders. In some cases, health concerns are relevant.

The following cases illustrate sustained agency discipline because of persistent severe hygiene problems which caused workplace disruption: 

In these cases, dress/appearance played a role in a sustained charge: