Dress codes appear to be a routine HR issue, but handled incorrectly, they carry significant legal and reputational risk. Those who impose inflexible or poorly thought-out requirements can quickly find themselves facing discrimination claims, employee relations issues and wider reputational damage.
Indirect Discrimination
The start point is the Equality Act 2010. This protects employees from discrimination because of religion or belief, amongst other protected characteristics. In the context of dress codes, the main area of risk is usually indirect discrimination—where a policy applies to everyone but has a disproportionate impact on a particular group.
The crucial question to ask is – can this policy be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?
4 cases for guidance on this delicate balance
Eweida v United Kingdom
In Eweida v United Kingdom a British Airways employee was prevented from wearing a small visible cross in breach of its uniform policy. The European Court of Human Rights found in her favour, holding that the employer’s desire to project its particular corporate image was not strong enough to justify restricting her right to show her own religion. The cross she wore was discreet and did not reduce her professionalism.
Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
By contrast, in Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust which was decided alongside Eweida, a nurse was prohibited from wearing a crucifix necklace for health and safety reasons. This time, the restriction was upheld in court. The risk of infection and the possibility of patients grabbing the necklace were considered legitimate concerns that outweighed the employee’s rights.
These cases show that context is everything. Health and safety will often provide a strong justification; corporate image alone rarely will.
Amzi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
A similar approach can be seen in cases involving religious clothing. In Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, a teaching assistant was required to remove her full face veil while working with pupils. Although this amounted to indirect discrimination, it was justified because the school needed effective communication in the classroom.
Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd
Likewise, in Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd, a requirement to wear a shorter jilbab was upheld due to health and safety concerns.
Remember to make adjustments if possible
Employers must still consider less discriminatory options. If adjustments are available, a blanket ban of certain types of clothing or jewellery is unlikely to be proportionate.
Philosophical beliefs
It is also important to remember that protection of employees extends beyond mainstream religions. Philosophical beliefs, if they are genuinely held and sufficiently serious – are also covered. This creates additional possibility for discrimination, if dress codes regulate symbols or expressions of belief.
HR takeaway
The key is that flexibility and justification are critical. A lawful dress code should allow for exceptions, be based on genuine business needs, and should demonstrate that alternatives have been considered. Always check that you are applying policies consistently.
In this area, a rigid approach is rarely defensible – and often unnecessary.
Further reading:
- The Equality Act 2010 s19 – www.gov.uk
- Discrimination and the law – Indirect Discrimination – ACAS
- The Equality Act 2010 Employment Code of Practice – EHRC
If you enjoyed this blog then perhaps you’d like to sign up to our monthly newsletter. We’ll keep you updated on what’s new in employment law.
The team at Hunter Law is here for you. We can handle your HR issues, finesse your policies, and keep you up-to-date on evolving legislation. Please get in touch with our legal team, we’d love to help.
