Dress codes 


Dress codes can discriminate if the employer imposes a requirement that disadvantages one group. In Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson [2003] UKEAT 0254/03/2711, the EAT said that requiring men to wear ties is not necessarily discriminatory. It is lawful to impose rules on wearing specific items of clothing on one sex to promote “smartness”, as long as the same standard of smartness is applied to both sexes. 


Dress codes can create particular challenges in the context of religious belief. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, workers have the human right to manifest (i.e. display) their individual faith in the workplace, for example, by wearing religious adornments such as a cross, but that this is a qualified, not an absolute, right and must be balanced alongside the employer’s need to achieve legitimate aims, such as protecting workplace health and safety:


Most employers try to adopt a flexible approach to dress codes when it comes to respecting religious beliefs.


A tribunal will not normally interfere with an employer’s judgment as to what clothing is or is not a safety risk at work, for example, a manager’s assessment as to whether a garment is a trip hazard.


In Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Limited t/a Barley Lane Montessori Day Nursery [2015] UKEAT/0309/13/RN, a nursery was not guilty of religious discrimination when it allowed a Muslim nursery worker to wear a jilbab but insisted on a style that was not too long and flowing, so as not to present a trip hazard to staff and children. 


In 2013, the Equality and Human Rights Commission produced new guidance on dress codes and religious observance, available on their website. Acas has also produced an updated good practice guide on religious observance in the workplace: Religion and belief and the workplace: a guide for employers and employees, which covers issues such as dress codes, working hours, work-related socialising and other working practices that may impact on religious belief.


In 2015, the law changed to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from any legal requirement to wear head protection at work (Sections 11 and 12, Employment Act 1989 amended by Section 6, Deregulation Act 2015). There is a limited exception for dangerous and hazardous tasks performed by those whose jobs involve providing an urgent response to an emergency, where a risk assessment has identified that head protection is essential for that individual’s protection, for example, a fire-fighter entering a burning building, dealing with hazardous materials. The exemption applies only to head protection. Sikhs must still wear all other necessary personal protective equipment. Employers must still take all necessary actions to avoid injury from falling objects, by putting in place such safe systems of work, control measures and other solutions such as signage and restricting access. 


In 2015, a reference was made by the French Courts to the ECJ in the case of Bougnaoui v Micropole Univers S.A. Case C-188/15. The case concerns the wearing of an Islamic headscarf at work. According to a report from Personnel Today magazine, the claimant, a Muslim design engineer, was instructed by her employer to remove her headscarf after a customer complained about her appearance. She refused and was dismissed. The issue seems to be whether or not the need to adopt a “neutral appearance” with a client can be a “genuine occupational requirement”.