By Kalpana Shyamapant, employment law specialist at award winning Harding Evans Solicitors.

In today’s image conscious society we are increasingly judged by what we wear. It is particularly important for businesses that staff dress in a way which reflects the corporate image and culture. We have progressed from “suited and booted” to “dress down Fridays” to smart/casual for everyday and back again! So as employers, how much control do you have over how your staff dress?

A good starting point is the much publicised case of Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson. Mr Thompson was a champion for “rights for men”. He worked for Jobcentre Plus and brought a tribunal case on the basis that requiring male employees to wear a collar and tie to work amounted to sex discrimination. His argument was that women had more variety about what they wore and no specific items of clothing were specified for them. Therefore, requiring men to wear a collar and tie imposed a greater standard of smartness for men than for women. His argument was successful at the Employment Tribunal. In consequence, this prompted 6950 claims from other male Jobcentre employees. Thankfully for the Government the Department for Work and Pensions appealed the decision at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the decision was overturned. We are now waiting for a new decision.

The important thing to note is that as employers you can have a dress code but it must not impose a higher standard of dress for any particular group of people. In addition it must not directly or indirectly discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief.

The general rule with a dress code is to focus on conventional standards of dress. The Courts have determined previously that it is acceptable for employers to have a dress code that applies a common standard based on convention - for example requiring a male employee to cut his long hair but allowing female employees to tie their long hair back is not sex discrimination as the dress code should also prevent a woman having an unconventional hair cut.

All employers must be particularly careful with issues of religion. Sikhs are protected under the Race Relations Act 1976 and barring a Sikh from having long hair would amount to race discrimination unless it can be objectively justified, for example on Health and Safety grounds. You also need to be sensitive to the needs of an employee undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment as they are also protected against discrimination.
For example, it is common practice for a man to dress and assume his female identity a number of years before the operation and as long as he conforms to the female convention which you have stipulated, he will be complying with the dress code.

If an employee breaches your dress code you can take disciplinary action against them as long as you can show you brought the dress code to the attention of your staff. Generally a one off breach of the dress code would only justify an informal warning. However it would be reasonable to dismiss an employee for a one off breach where the consequences of that breach are extremely serious.

If the breach is persistent or a flagrant disregard of the dress code, you should take things to a more formal level and consider an oral warning recorded on the personnel file, or a formal written warning. Repeated breaches, despite a number of warnings could lead to a dismissal.

In essence a dress code is a good idea in maintaining a work force which projects the right image but employers must be sensitive to the needs of their workforce in its implementation.

Disclaimer
Professional advice should always be sought when dealing with legal issues. This article does not constitute legal advice and no responsibility can be taken from actions arising from reading this article.