Topics

Dress codes and uniforms

New and updated

  • Case round-up: constructive dismissal claims; and discriminatory dress codes

    Date:
    20 January 2004
    Type:
    Law reports

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: constructive dismissal claims; and discriminatory dress codes.

  • Under the law outlawing discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, are company dress codes permissible?

    Type:
    FAQs

  • Case digest

    Date:
    1 September 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

  • Dress requirement lawful

    Date:
    1 September 2001
    Type:
    Law reports

    The EAT in Cootes v John Lewis plc has upheld a finding that it was not unlawful sex discrimination to require a female selling partner to wear a uniform.

  • Hajib observer not indirectly discriminated against

    Date:
    1 December 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    A Muslim woman who was required to remove her headscarf, which she wore in accordance with her religious beliefs, and replace it with protective headgear, was not indirectly discriminated against on grounds of race, holds a Birmingham employment tribunal (Chair: J van Gelder) in Hussain v Midland Cosmetic Sales Ltd and others.

  • Kara-wearer not discriminated against

    Date:
    1 June 1999
    Type:
    Law reports

    A Sikh woman, who was moved to a lower-status job away from food production because she wore a metal bracelet - the "kara" - in line with her religious beliefs, was not indirectly discriminated against, holds a Leicester employment tribunal (Chair: J A Threlfell) in Kang v RF Brookes Ltd.

  • Hijab wearer discriminated against

    Date:
    1 September 1998
    Type:
    Law reports

    A Muslim woman who was subjected to pejorative remarks from her colleagues and management when she began wearing her hijab at work, and whose complaints were simply brushed aside by management without proper investigation, was discriminated against on grounds of race and sex, holds a Bedford employment tribunal (Chair: P Robjant) in Khanum v IBC Vehicles Ltd.

  • Black applicant rejected because of hairstyle

    Date:
    1 December 1997
    Type:
    Law reports

    An Afro-Caribbean applicant rejected for a job because she refused to change her hairstyle to comply with the employer's appearance code, was not unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of race, rules a London North industrial tribunal (Chair: D Leahy) in Johnson-Croft v Mezzo Ltd.

  • Conventional appearance rule not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 September 1996
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Pony-tail rule discriminatory

    Date:
    1 March 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to dress codes and uniforms.