dress code not discriminatory
A trainee police officer who claimed that the requirement for
him to cut his shoulder-length hair was discriminatory on grounds
of sex has failed in his appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal
(EAT). Mr Dansie commenced training in the police force in 2008. He
had previously asked whether his shoulder length hair would be
acceptable, and he was told that it would comply with the dress
code. When he started training he wore his hair slicked back and
tied in a bun on the back of his head, but was told to have his
hair cut and threatened with disciplinary action if he did not
comply. He complied but presented a tribunal claim that he had been
discriminated against and/or harassed on grounds of sex. His
employment tribunal claim failed.
The parties agreed that a female recruit in similar
circumstances would not have been required to cut her hair. In
considering Mr Dansie's appeal, the EAT confirmed that the question
is whether, applying contemporary standards of conventional dress,
the employer is asking employees to display an equivalent level of
smartness between the sexes. A difference in treatment between the
sexes on one aspect of the dress code does not necessarily
constitute more or less favourable treatment. The Tribunal had been
entitled to find the dress code equally balanced between the sexes
and the treatment of Mr Dansie was not less favourable. A female
who failed to comply with the dress code necessary for this
disciplined service would have been treated in the say way as Mr
Dansie: she would have been ordered to comply or face disciplinary
action. In the circumstances of the findings about the dress code,
this did not amount to harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act
1975.
<<back
to bulletin main menu
