|
Bad news for men with long hair
In Dansie v Metropolitan Police, the EAT decided that requiring a male employee to cut his shoulder-length hair did not constitute unlawful sex discrimination or sexual harassment simply because in similar circumstances a female employee would not have been required to cut her hair, as long as the employer’s overall dress code was "equally balanced between the sexes".
The Police Dress Code Policy stated, as one of its objectives: "The standard of dress should be smart, fit for the purpose and portray a favourable impression of the service." Separate Manager's guidance on this Policy stated that "Hair must be neat, not allowed to cover the ears and...worn above the collar. For safety reasons, ponytails are not permitted and long hair must be neatly and securely fastened up and worn relatively close to the head."
The employee turned up to a police training session with shoulder length hair slicked back on his head and tied in a bun on the back of his head. Prior to attending he had enquired and been told that his hair would comply with the Police Dress Code Policy. At the training session he was told to get a hair cut or face disciplinary action. He complied and then sued for sex discrimination on the basis that a female recruit in similar circumstances would not have been required to cut her hair.
The EAT agreed with the Tribunal that there had been no less favourable treatment on the basis that a female comparator who failed to comply with a gender neutral dress/appearance code would have been treated in the same way as the Claimant; i.e. she would have been required to comply with the Code as it affected her in the same way as the Claimant was required to comply with the Code as it affected him. Having found that the Policy was equally balanced between the sexes, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the sex discrimination claims was sound.
Other news
- Gender equality - women ski jumpers left out in the cold, again...read more
- Sick whilst on holiday? Have another one on your employer!...read more
- Constructive dismissal - What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander...read more
- Viva variation clauses...read more
|