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 refusal to allow an airline check-in desk worker to wear a small cross was disproportionate, whereas a refusal of the same request by a hospital nurse was not (Eweida v The UK [2013] ECHR 37). In this case, the ECHR noted that hospital managers are better placed than judges to assess questions of clinical safety. 



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 promote 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 a 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 lead to sex discrimination and sexual harassment. In May 2018, the government updated its advice to employers on dress codes and sex discrimination, available on its website. The guide says that consulting trade unions and employees over proposed dress codes will help ensure that the code is acceptable to the organisation and to staff. 



In DWP v Thompson [2003] UKEAT 0254/03/2711, the EAT ruled that employers can impose rules about wearing specific 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.