A WAITRESS has sued her boss after he demanded she wear a bra to work.

Christina Schell, 25, said she was forced out of her job at Osoyoos Golf Club in British Columbia in Canada, for refusing to comply with what she claimed was a “sexist” dress code.

Miss Schell had only been working at the golf club for three weeks before she was fired.

She said she stopped wearing bras three years ago for comfort and health reasons – and it had never presented any problems before.

After she started working at the Greenside Grill in the golf club in June this year, customers complained about her being braless – and so bosses brought in a new dress code.

It stated that women “must wear either a tank top or bra under their uniform shirt.”

Miss Schell refused to sign and said she was fired as a result. She’s now filed a human rights complaint.

Speaking to the Osoyoos Times she said: “No male employee is required to wear an undershirt. So this is where it becomes a discriminatory issue for me…I don’t think it’s anybody else’s business what’s under my clothes.

“As a female, that I can’t choose my undergarments in this day and age, it’s really, really tough.”

She added: “Why do you get to dictate what’s underneath my clothes?

“I’d love to know why my boobs offend somebody. They’re not hanging down by my waist. If they were, whose problem is it but mine? These things happen and these things aren’t right.”

Miss Schell said she confronted the golf club’s manager, Doug Robb, and he allegedly told her the dress code was for her protection.

She claimed he told her: “I know what happens in golf clubs when alcohol is involved.”

Employment lawyer David Brown said dress codes that apply different rules for different genders could be viewed as discriminatory under the British Columbia Human Rights Code.

He said: "It’s an interesting question as to whether or not an employer can dictate the underwear that women can wear, but they don’t say anything about the underwear that men can wear, and does that create an adverse impact on the individual?”

Mr Robb declined to comment, saying employee matters were confidential.