A college in California is reviewing its gym dress code after a female student was told to “cover up” by a male employee.

FASHION AND TRAVEL BLOGGER ALEXANDRA LAPP, 44, CREDITS AGE FOR HER SUCCESS

Leila Mori, 30, was visiting the gym at her school, California State University, Fresno, in September when she claims a male staff member approached her and told her to “cover up” while she was working out. Mori was wearing high-waist yoga leggings and a sports bra when the employee made the request, she told the Fresno Bee, claiming only about 2 inches of her midriff was exposed.

Mori complained about the incident, claiming the gym’s current dress code was a form of body shaming women.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I felt very sad and I felt very, like, ashamed in an instant,” Mori told Fresno Bee of the employee’s comment.

Mori reached out to Derek A. Walters, director of the college’s Red Sports and Fitness center, to report the incident, but Walters reportedly defended the employee’s actions.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER

The school is now discussing updating the gym dress code, which currently requires all guests to wear a shirt “covering the torso” while at the facility. (iStock)

Mori filed a Title IX complaint against the university in October, citing the dress code as unfair to women, the news outlet reported. However, Mori eventually closed her complaint after the school agreed to look at its dress code policy.

According to the news outlet, the school is now discussing updating the gym dress code, which currently requires all guests to wear a shirt “covering the torso” while at the facility.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOR MORE FOX LIFESTYLE NEWS

“The dress code is going through possible revisions, but possible changes are still undergoing review,” Fresno State spokeswoman Lisa Boyles said in an email to the Fresno Bee. “It would be premature to discuss how the finished guidelines might look before that review and approval process is completed.”

Specifics regarding the dress code policy change or prospective date when they would go into effect were not shared.