Skip over navigation

Requiring male worker to cut hair was not discrimination



    Date:
    23 Dec 2009

    Print friendly version

    A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision has confirmed that an employer was entitled to uphold a dress code which imposed different requirements on male and female employees.

    This case concerned Mr A. Dansie, who was training to be a police constable. The employer’s dress code policy required the standard of dress “to be smart, fit for purpose and portray a favourable impression of the service”. It also 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." 

     
    Mr Dansie had shoulder-length hair and was told by his employer, the Commissioner of Police for Metropolis, to cut his hair or face disciplinary action. The employee agreed to cut his hair but brought a claim against his employer asserting that he had been unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of his sex, on the basis that a female employee would not have been required to cut her hair. 
     
    An Employment Tribunal held that the employer’s policy was gender-neutral when considered as a whole, and that a woman would have been treated in the same way in a comparable (but not the same) situation. The claim was dismissed.
     
    The employee appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) but his appeal was also dismissed. The EAT held that a dress code policy which applies “a conventional standard of appearance” is not in and of itself discriminatory. This is because when the policy is looked at as a whole it is evident that a female employee who has failed to comply with another part of the dress code would be treated in the same way.  The employer’s policy was therefore “equally balanced between the sexes” and “fully acceptable in law”.


    Tina Maxey, an employment solicitor with Steeles Law,  commented on the case:

    “This case confirms that employers are entitled to enforce dress codes with different requirements for men and women, provided that both sexes are subject to a similar standard of dress and the policy is enforced equally in respect of men and women.”

    Related topics:

    Add a comment


    Send me an email-alert when someone comments in this discussion:

    Please remember that your name and comment will be visible to all users of the Network, and that we may edit or remove comments without notice. Terms and conditions


    This document is for general guidance and research purposes only, and does not purport to give professional advice. Please check the date at the top of the article; the Workplace Law Network retains historic articles for general research.

    Related content

    Support from Workplace Law