header-logo header-logo

11 September 2009 / Helen Crossland
Issue: 7384 / Categories: Opinion , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Looking the part

comment_9

Lookism in the workplace—discrimination or a fact of life? asks Helen Crossland

It is a commonly held belief that there is now a culture of “lookism” in most workplaces in that staff are recruited, promoted and retained either on an arbitrary view of their attractiveness or on the basis of how their appearance best matches the image their employer wishes to present. While such a culture is unlikely to be acknowledged openly in the majority of workplaces, case law shows that job applicants and employees are being discriminated against on the basis of how they look.

There is strong statistical evidence that women who wear make-up in business get better jobs and are promoted more quickly. More surprising were the results of a recent survey by Personnel Today in which 81% thought it was acceptable to make fun of people’s ginger hair while more than 70% considered blonde hair, regional accents, baldness and shortness to be acceptable topics of banter.

The issue of lookism in the workplace has been highlighted by the

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll