Dress codes 




Dress codes at work create particular challenges in the context of religious observance. Workers have the human right to manifest (that is, display) their faith at work, for example, by wearing a cross if you are a Christian, but this is a qualified, not an absolute, right (see Chapter 1). It must be balanced alongside an employer’s legitimate and proportionate aims, such as health and safety. For example: 


A tribunal will not normally interfere with an employer’s judgment as to whether clothing presents a safety risk. (See, for example, Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Limited t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery [2015] UKEAT/0309/13/RN). 




Head covering at work has generated two controversial ECJ rulings of concern to trade unions and equality campaigners. In Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions [2017] CJEU C-157/15, the ECJ ruled that security outsourcing company G4S did not engage in direct religious discrimination when it enforced a “neutral dress” policy by dismissing a Muslim woman who insisted on wearing her hijab. Such a policy is not direct discrimination, said the ECJ, as long as it is applied equally to everybody. The ECJ accepted that a neutral dress policy can discriminate indirectly against Muslim women, who are more likely to wear a headscarf. Even so, the judges concluded that “neutrality” can be a legitimate business aim, although to be proportionate, the policy should be limited to “customer-facing” roles. The case has been much criticised. 


Headscarves were also considered in Bougnaoui v Micropole S.A. [2015] CJEU C-188/15. In this case, an external client instructed an employer that their employee was not to wear her hijab on her next visit. When she refused, she was dismissed. The ECJ ruled that the customer’s wishes were not a “genuine occupational requirement” and could not justify the dismissal. 


Most UK employers try to adopt a balanced and flexible approach to dress codes in the context of religious belief. A tolerant dress code that enables workers to manifest their faith at work while balancing legitimate employer needs can help encourage recruitment from under-represented groups. For example in August 2016, the hijab became an optional part of the uniform of Police Scotland, as part of police efforts to encourage more Muslim women to join the force. 


In 2015, UK law changed to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from any legal requirement to wear head protection at work unless engaged in dangerous and hazardous tasks involving an emergency response, where a risk assessment has concluded that head protection is essential for the individual’s protection. An example would be a firefighter entering a burning building. See the HSE website for more information.



Both Acas and the EHRC have produced free guidance on dress codes and religious observance, available from their websites. 


Unsuitable dress codes can also engender sex discrimination and sexual harassment. In January 2017, the Women and Equalities Committee and the Petitions Committee produced a report on dress codes calling for the law be strengthened to make it clear that dress codes must be non-discriminatory. This call is repeated in the Fawcett Society Sex Discrimination Law Review 2018 available on the charity’s website.



In DWP v Thompson [2003] UKEAT 0254/03/2711, the EAT ruled that it is lawful to impose rules about wearing specific items of clothing on one sex and not the other to promote “smartness” as long as the same standard of smartness is applied to both sexes. This case concerned a challenge to a requirement for men to wear ties.