zlacker

They were Unites States based HR Departments. Pants, did not include Jeans.

You are correct. Looked it up, and Jeans are sub-category of Pants. Though, I live in the US and have never had someone refer to jeans as pants. It seems a technical definition that I've never seen used that way. I know arguing with HR they did not see it that way.

Perhaps HR really meant 'slacks'. as in Dressy Pants.

>>Frustr+(OP)
So we just both have different anecdotal experiences. I live in the US also, and the places I've worked were pretty clear. For example, working at a big4 accounting firm, they specified pretty clearer in the dress code that pants didn't include jeans, as where at the consultancy arm of a fortune 500 tech company, it was fine and pants included jeans unless meeting with a client, but that was clearly specified.

>>ruthma+93
Yep. And, probably HR departments are also variable in their definitions, and accuracy.

Really, I had to look it up. I had always thought of 'pants' as 'dress pants'. So to have such a broad category of 'pants' seemed like an older technical definition I've never seen used commonly.

But, if you saw in other posts. For the Chess rules. There was another section of the rules that specified 'no jeans'. So for the current controversy, it didn't specifically hinge on this definition of 'pants'.