The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Dansie v The Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis has approved previous case law regarding dress codes and the ability of employers to apply different rules of appearance in respect of men and women. 

 

Mr Danise commenced his training as a new PC at Hendon, wearing his long hair pulled back in a bun.  He had previously asked whether his hair would be acceptable and had been told that it complied with the dress code.  However, on commencement he was told that he would need to cut his hair or else he would face disciplinary action.  Accordingly, Mr Dansie had his hair cut but brought claims of unlawful sex discrimination on the grounds of less favourable treatment and harassment (the threat of disciplinary action).

 

The  EAT found that a woman would not have been required to cut her hair in similar circumstances, but said that this did not amount to less favourable treatment:  "...a difference in treatment between the sexes on one particular aspect of the Dress Code is not necessarily more favourable treatment of a member of one sex compared with a member of the other sex...it is necessary to consider the Dress Code as a whole, even although a single provision of the Code may upset the balance of treating the sexes equally." 

 

It is this sort of reasoning which permits employers to insist that men wear a collar and tie (but not women).  As long as the code fits in with conventional standards of dress it is likely to be permitted.