A recent case involving the Metropolitan Police (as opposed to the “style police”) concluded that even though the provisions of an employer’s dress code may result in male and female employees being treated differently, that does not necessarily make the treatment unlawfully discriminatory.
When Mr Dansie, a trainee police officer, arrived at the Hendon Training College in London, he sported shoulder length hair that was slicked back and fastened in a bun at the back of his head. The force’s policy on appearance required smart dress that was fit for purpose and portrayed a favourable impression of the police service. A separate guidance document included a provision that stated hair should be neat, and long hair securely fastened up and worn close to the head and that, for safety reasons, pony tails were not allowed.
Mr Dansie was subsequently told to get his hair cut and threatened with disciplinary action if he did not do so. He duly complied to avoid been removed from the training programme and then filed a claim against the force claiming that he had suffered sex discrimination on the grounds that a female officer would not have been required to cut hair of a similar length.
The Employment Tribunal disagreed and so Mr Dansie appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the original tribunal had got the decision right. In its decision, the EAT confirmed that when looking at the question of whether the application of a dress code might be discriminatory, the correct approach was to consider the code in its entirety.
Even though a provision may be gender specific – as here requiring a male employee to cut his hair, where a female employee would not have been required to – this would not stop the policy as a whole being gender-neutral, provided that it is fair and even-handed between the sexes and fits within the conventions of society, contemporary standards and the specific needs of the provision in question – essentially asking all employees to display a similar level of smartness.
It is important to remember that in Mr Dansie’s case, the profession in question was the police force, a highly disciplined service. However, similar factors may not be applicable in circumstances where an employee does not come into contact with members of the public or clients of the business, for example when working in a factory or warehouse. In such circumstances a similar policy may amount to less favourable treatment.
It is always advisable for an employer to reflect upon the potential consequences of applying any policy, which may be discriminatory not just on grounds of sex, but also other grounds including race, disability or religious belief, and always ensure that they are applied consistently.