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.
A ponytailed man who was dismissed from his job for refusing to have his hair cut was not discriminated against on the grounds of sex, holds a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: D N Milton) in Lloyd v Computer Associates.
In Cresswell v Follett and others a woman who was dismissed because she wore trousers to work was discriminated against on grounds of sex, rules a Birmingham industrial tribunal (Chair: J R Harwick).
In McConomy v Croft Inns Ltd (10 July 1992) EOR48C, the Northern Ireland High Court holds that it was unlawfully discriminatory for a public house to bar a man for wearing an earring.
Singh v British Rail Engineering Ltd (EAT, 29.7.85) EOR5B holds that a requirement for railway repair workers to wear protective headgear was justifiable notwithstanding that it discriminated against Sikhs.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dress codes and uniforms.