This month's round-up of decisions on discrimination from the courts.
In Smith v Safeway plc (16 February 1996) EOR69A, the Court of Appeal holds that an appearance code which applies a standard of what is conventional applies an even-handed approach between men and women, and not one which is sex discriminatory.
In Smith v Safeway plc (9 December 1994) EOR60B, the EAT, by a majority decision, holds that it was unlawfully discriminatory to dismiss a man for having long hair in circumstances in which a woman with long hair would not have been dismissed.
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 Blaik v The Post Office (16 November 1993) EOR56D, the EAT rules that a complaint cannot be brought directly under the EEC Equal Treatment Directive where there is a sufficient remedy under the British Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to employee dress codes.