Topics

Dress codes and uniforms

New and updated

  • Date:
    20 January 2004
    Type:
    Law reports

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

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

  • Type:
    FAQs

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

  • Date:
    1 September 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Case digest

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

  • Date:
    1 September 2001
    Type:
    Law reports

    Dress requirement lawful

    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.

  • Date:
    1 December 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    Hajib observer not indirectly discriminated against

    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.

  • Date:
    1 June 1999
    Type:
    Law reports

    Kara-wearer not discriminated against

    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.

  • Date:
    1 September 1998
    Type:
    Law reports

    Hijab wearer discriminated against

    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.

  • Date:
    1 December 1997
    Type:
    Law reports

    Black applicant rejected because of hairstyle

    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.

  • Date:
    1 September 1996
    Type:
    Law reports

    Conventional appearance rule not discriminatory

    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.

  • Date:
    1 March 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    Pony-tail rule 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.

About this topic

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

Dress codes and uniforms: key resources