header-logo header-logo

24 June 2016
Issue: 7704 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Code of conduct

nlj_7704_piggott

Charles Pigott comments on heels, headscarves & other dress code conundrums

  • May’s media storm surrounding the receptionist who was sent home for refusing to wear heels has injected new life into the legal arguments about dress codes and equality law.
  • Coincidentally the advocate general’s opinion in the first dress code reference to reach the ECJ was published later same month.

Fortunately for those involved, “Heelgate” never escalated into a legal dispute, as the employers backed down. But judging by the tens of thousands signing the parliamentary petition to make it illegal for employers to insist on heels at work, at least some must still require female staff to wear them. Many believe the law would be on the side of a worker who refused to wear heels. But is that necessarily the case?

Long hair

The leading case on gendered dress codes was decided by the Court of Appeal 20 years ago: Smith v Safeway Plc [1996] IRLR 456. Mr Smith, who worked as a delicatessen assistant, was unable to establish that his employer’s insistence

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll