Topics

Dress codes and uniforms

New and updated

  • UK remedy precludes EC law claim

    Date:
    1 July 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Dress rule not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 March 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Long hair dismissal not sex bias

    Date:
    1 September 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Woman dismissed for wearing trousers

    Date:
    1 June 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    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).

  • Ban on man's earring unlawful

    Date:
    1 March 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Protection headgear requirement justifiable

    Date:
    1 January 1986
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Sex discrimination: EAT rules dress and appearance standards not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 September 1977
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

About this topic

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