In Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd (Jersey Kapwood Ltd) [1982] IRLR 281 EAT, the EAT held that the employer's conscious motive for taking a particular course of action, whilst it may be relevant, is not the decisive factor when considering whether racial discrimination has taken place.
In Kingston & Richmond Area Health Authority v Kaur, the EAT has ruled that a requirement by a health authority that enrolled nurses wear a standard uniform which could not be varied is "justifiable" within the meaning of s.1(1)(b)(ii) of the Race Relations Act and that in applying such a requirement to a Sikh woman, whose religion requires her to wear trousers, the employers had not unlawfully indirectly discriminated against her.
In Panesar v The Nestle Co Ltd [1980] IRLR 64 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the respondents' rule forbidding beards in their chocolate factory was "justifiable" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976, section 1(1)(b).
In Malik v British Home Stores [1980] ET/2901/79, the employment tribunal found that it was unlawful indirect race discrimination to require a Muslim woman of Pakistani origin to wear a uniform of an overall over a skirt.