Background Facts

Mr Dansie, a trainee employee at the Metropolitan Police had shoulder length hair.  The Metropolitan Police required the employee to cut his hair short.  Mr Dansie brought a sex discrimination/harassment claim under the Sex Discrimination Act because (it was argued) a female employee would not in similar circumstances have been required to cut her hair.

In upholding the Tribunal’s decision that there was no sex discrimination the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that the correct test is whether, applying contemporary standards and conventions, as well as specific needs of the profession in question, the employer’s dress code as a whole was asking employees to display an equivalent level of smartness between the sexes.  This follows previous case law on the issue, but confirms the point.

The EAT was satisfied that the Tribunal had been entitled to find, on the evidence, that a female recruit who failed to comply with a gender neutral dress/appearance code would have been treated in the same way and therefore there was no less favourable treatment.

Comment

This is still a claim we sometimes see in the Tribunal, and a common query from employers.  This is a good decision for employers which (provided the employer does require equivalent levels of smartness between the sexes) make it hard for Claimants to bring and succeed in such claims.  The issue here was to do with length of hair, however similar issues have been encountered regarding the provision to wear skirts or trousers, tattoos and other jewellery.