Exact Language I'd Use When Writing Inclusive Staff Policies
Some of my best ideas come from other aquatic professionals. And no, I don't mean stealing! Someone asks a question in a Facebook group, shares how their facility handles something, or gives feedback that makes me stop and think, “Huh. I hadn't thought about it that way.” Same?
That's where this post came from. I'm in a great Facebook group with aquatic professionals who regularly ask questions about staffing, policies, dress codes, accommodations, supervision, patron behavior, and all the other complicated little things that come with running an aquatic operation. Sometimes I read the responses and think, That's exactly what I would say. Sometimes I would approach it completely differently. And sometimes someone brings up something I hadn't considered at all.
I think that's one of the best parts of having a professional community. We don't have to figure all of this out independently.
Recently, a conversation about staff apparel got me thinking about something else: we talk a lot about making policies more inclusive, but that advice can be frustratingly vague. It's easy to say, "Review your dress code through an equity lens." It's harder when you're actually sitting in front of a Word document trying to decide what the policy should say.
So that's what we're doing here. What would I actually write?
These aren't universal policies to copy and paste without review. Your HR department, legal counsel, collective bargaining agreements, state and local laws, organizational structure, safety requirements, and actual job functions all matter. But if you're staring at an old policy thinking, I know this could be better, but I don't know what better sounds like, here are some places I'd start.
Before We Write Anything: Policy or Rule?
I make a practical distinction between a policy and a rule when I'm working in aquatics.
For me, a policy is internal. A rule communicates behavioral expectations to participants and visitors.
That's not a universal legal definition, and your organization may use the terms differently. I just find it helpful because it forces me to identify whose behavior we're actually trying to guide.
A policy might say:
Staff will respond to suspected fecal contamination according to the facility's contamination-response procedure.
A public-facing rule might say:
Please do not enter the pool if you are experiencing diarrhea.
Both address the same general safety concern, but they're doing completely different jobs.
This distinction becomes especially useful when we're reviewing rules for inclusion and accessibility because sometimes we create another restriction for patrons when what we actually need is a better internal process for staff.
Before adding a rule to the giant sign at the entrance, I like asking: Whose behavior are we trying to change? What problem are we trying to solve? Is this the least restrictive reasonable way to solve it? Can staff explain why it exists?
If the answer points back to us, we may need a policy, procedure, or better training rather than another patron rule. With that distinction in mind, let's write some policies.
1. Staff Uniforms and Swimwear
Aquatics has traditionally been pretty prescriptive about what lifeguards wear, and some of that makes sense. Staff need to be identifiable. Clothing can't interfere with rescue skills or required equipment. Certain positions require employees to enter the water and perform specific physical skills.
But sometimes our policies go much further than what's operationally necessary. A policy requiring "female lifeguards" to wear one-piece swimsuits and "male lifeguards" to wear trunks isn't really describing the operational requirement. It's describing how we've traditionally expected different people to dress. Start with the job requirement instead.
Policy language I would consider:
Aquatic Staff Uniform Policy: Employees must wear the designated staff uniform while on duty so they are readily identifiable to patrons and other staff. Staff may select from approved uniform options appropriate to their assigned position. Employees may wear additional garments for coverage, comfort, religious observance, disability-related needs, gender affirmation, sun protection, or personal preference, provided those garments do not interfere with required job functions, rescue skills, safety equipment, or staff identification. Approved aquatic garments may include swimsuits, board shorts, rash guards, swim leggings, sport hijabs, swim hoods, and similar attire that remains secure during the movements required for the employee's position. Supervisors should address uniform concerns based on safety, job function, secure coverage, and staff identification rather than gender, body type, or subjective expectations about appearance.
I particularly like that last sentence because it also gives supervisors a framework for handling something you didn't anticipate when you wrote the policy. Instead of asking, Do I personally think this looks appropriate?, we're asking: Does it interfere with the person's ability to do the job safely? Those are very different standards.
2. Sick Leave and Doctor's Notes
This is another area where something that sounds neutral can create very different burdens for different employees.
Requiring a doctor's note for every illness-related absence may sound like an accountability measure, but think about what we're actually requiring. An employee who already knows they have a stomach bug may need to find an appointment, arrange transportation, pay for the visit, potentially expose other people, and use healthcare resources simply to obtain a piece of paper confirming they're sick.
Access to healthcare isn't equal. Transportation isn't equal. Insurance coverage isn't equal. Disability and chronic health conditions can complicate access even further.
That doesn't mean attendance doesn't matter. We can have clear attendance expectations without requiring employees to prove every short-term illness through the healthcare system.
Policy language I would consider:
Illness-Related Absences: Employees who are unable to safely perform their assigned duties because of illness should notify their supervisor as soon as reasonably possible using the department's established absence-reporting process. Medical documentation is not routinely required for short-term illness-related absences. Documentation may be requested when required by law, necessary to evaluate an accommodation or return-to-work requirement, or permitted under organizational policy for an extended or recurring absence. Patterns of attendance concerns should be addressed through the organization's established attendance and performance processes rather than through automatic medical-documentation requirements for every illness.
I would also pair this with a strong internal expectation that employees should not be pressured to work when doing so creates a health or safety concern. In aquatics especially, "just come in anyway" isn't a particularly impressive staffing strategy.
3. Names and Pronouns
This is one where I wouldn't write a six-paragraph policy trying to anticipate every possible situation. I'd establish a simple workplace expectation.
Policy language I would consider:
Names and Pronouns: Employees are expected to address coworkers, participants, and members of the public by the names and pronouns they use. Mistakes should be corrected respectfully and without drawing unnecessary attention to the individual. Intentional or repeated disrespectful use of another person's name or pronouns may be addressed through the same workplace conduct processes used for other forms of disrespectful behavior. Staff should not be required to disclose personal information about their gender or identity in order to have their name and pronouns respected.
The important piece to me is that we don't need to turn this into a vocabulary test. Respect people's names. Respect their pronouns. Correct mistakes. Move on.
4. Accommodation Requests
Sometimes policies accidentally make people jump through far more hoops than necessary before we'll even have a conversation about access.
Your internal policy can make clear that staff should start by understanding the barrier rather than immediately demanding documentation or deciding whether someone's request "counts."
Policy language I would consider:
Requests for Workplace Access or Accommodation: Employees who experience a barrier affecting their ability to access or perform their work may raise the concern with their supervisor, Human Resources, or another designated organizational contact. Supervisors receiving a request should focus first on understanding the barrier and identifying potential solutions rather than making assumptions about an employee's diagnosis, disability, or needs. Medical information or documentation should only be requested when appropriate and consistent with applicable law and organizational procedures. Employees should not be asked to disclose medical information to coworkers or staff members who do not need that information to perform their responsibilities. When a simple workplace adjustment can reasonably remove a barrier without creating a safety or operational concern, supervisors are encouraged to consider that solution even when a formal accommodation process is not required.
I especially like that last concept. Not every helpful adjustment needs to become a medical event. Sometimes letting someone use a written closing checklist is just good supervision.
5. Scheduling and Availability
Aquatics can be brutal about scheduling because we have nights, weekends, early mornings, holidays, tournaments, meets, rentals, lessons, and approximately 400 shifts nobody wants during winter break. You still need people to work. But a scheduling policy can establish the actual requirements without deciding which personal obligations are "important enough" to deserve consideration.
Policy language I would consider:
Employee Availability and Scheduling: Employees are responsible for providing accurate availability and meeting the minimum availability requirements established for their position. Scheduling decisions will be based on operational needs, employee availability, required qualifications, and equitable distribution of available work. Employees may request schedule adjustments for religious observance, disability-related needs, caregiving responsibilities, education, transportation limitations, or other personal circumstances. Requests will be considered in accordance with applicable law, organizational policy, staffing requirements, and operational feasibility. Employees are not expected to demonstrate that one type of personal obligation is more deserving of consideration than another unless specific information is required for a formal accommodation process.
That last sentence addresses something subtle that happens in workplaces all the time. We can accidentally create a hierarchy where this family responsibility counts, that religious observance counts, this school event doesn't count, and your transportation issue apparently isn't important.
You can still say, "We need you to be available three weekends each month." That's a job requirement. The difference is that we're defining the requirement instead of judging someone's life.
6. Hair, Grooming, Tattoos, Piercings, and Appearance
This is another area where I think specificity beats "professional appearance." "Employees must maintain a professional appearance" sounds simple until five supervisors have five completely different definitions of professional. If there's a safety reason for a restriction, write the safety requirement.
Policy language I would consider:
Personal Appearance and Grooming: Employees are expected to maintain personal hygiene and wear clothing and accessories that allow them to safely perform the essential functions of their assigned position. Hair, hairstyles, facial hair, tattoos, piercings, head coverings, cosmetics, and other aspects of personal appearance are permitted unless a specific characteristic creates a documented safety concern, interferes with required protective or rescue equipment, prevents staff identification, or otherwise interferes with an essential job function. When a safety concern exists, supervisors should work with the employee to determine whether the concern can be addressed through an alternative that allows the employee to safely perform the position.
Again, we're moving away from "Does this look like what I think an employee should look like?" We're asking "What does this job actually require?" That's a much more useful question.
A Few Questions Before You Write the Next Policy
You don't necessarily need to throw out your employee handbook and start over. Pick a policy and interrogate it.
What problem are we trying to solve?
Is this an actual safety or operational requirement, or is it simply how we've always done it?
Could this affect some employees differently than others?
Are we asking for information we actually need?
Could we accomplish the same goal with fewer restrictions?
Does the policy tell supervisors how to handle situations consistently?
Could I explain why this requirement exists without saying, "Because that's our policy"?
Y'all know by now that that last one is a favorite of mine! Remember, policies absolutely create boundaries. They establish expectations, protect safety, support consistency, and tell people how an organization operates. Inclusive policy writing isn't about removing every expectation. It's about making sure the expectations we create have a reason to be there.
And sometimes all it takes to recognize that an old policy deserves another look is another aquatic professional asking a really good question. Please, keep asking them. I promise to keep taking notes.
