In Smith v Safeway plc, the Court of Appeal holds that an industrial tribunal was entitled to decide that an employer's appearance code which required male employees' hair not to be below collar-length was not discriminatory.
In Jepson and Dyas-Elliott v The Labour Party and others, an industrial tribunal finds that the Labour Party's policy of shortlisting only women as its prospective parliamentary candidates in certain constituencies resulted in unlawful direct sex discrimination against two men not considered for shortlists by three of its constituency parties.
In Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen, the European Court of Justice holds that the Equal Treatment Directive precludes national rules which guarantee women equally qualified with men automatic selection for appointment or promotion to posts in which women are underrepresented.
A female employee whose manager changed her work, ostensibly because it was "too much" for a woman to do on her own, suffered less favourable treatment on the ground of her sex even though the real reason for the manager's decision was dissatisfaction with the employee's work rather than any intention to discriminate. In Allen v Cannon Hygiene Ltd the EAT holds that the industrial tribunal wrongly focused on the employer's motivation and failed to consider the effect of its action, which was to deprive the employee of the chance to answer alleged complaints about her performance.
The dismissal of a man for wearing a pony-tail was an act of sex discrimination, holds the EAT in Smith v Safeway plc.
In Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd, the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that a woman who was deeply upset and offended by pictures of naked women being displayed in her male-dominated workplace, and whose complaints were trivialised by her employer, was not subjected to unlawful sex discrimination.
An employer's dress code which required men to wear a suit, but gave women a much wider choice of clothing, did not give rise to any sex discrimination against men. This finding by an industrial tribunal disclosed no error of law, holds the EAT in James v Bank of England.
In Stoke-on-Trent Community Transport v Cresswell the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that the dismissal of a woman for wearing trousers at work amounted to sex discrimination, because male employees were not subject to any rules or disciplinary sanctions in respect of their appearance.
In Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority (8 October 1993) EOR54D, the EAT rules that a female nurse was not treated less favourably by being required to wear a nurse's cap which she found demeaning, even though male nurses were not required to wear a cap.
In Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that a female nurse, disciplined for refusing to wear a starched linen cap which male nurses did not have to wear, was not treated less favourably on grounds of sex.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct sex discrimination.