Case
Rules which lay down standards of dress and appearance for both women and men are unlikely to constitute unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex, even if they impose different requirements on women (such as prohibition on wearing trousers) than on men, based on the difference in sexes. This is the principle which emerges from the recent EAT case of Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops.
XpertHR is part of the LexisNexis® Risk Solutions Group portfolio of brands.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
View our privacy policy, cookie policy, supported browsers and access your cookie settings.
Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group
© 2021 LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group.