header-logo header-logo

25 October 2007
Issue: 7294 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Tidy-hair policy not prejudicial

News

A dreadlocked Rastafarian who was fired for his messy hair has lost his Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) discrimination claim.

The EAT backed the original tribunal finding that the claimant,  J Harris, who worked as an driver for NKL Automotive, had not suffered direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical beliefs, as he claimed.
The case was sent back to the tribunal to consider the question of victimisation discrimination.

Harris complained that he was getting less work than other agency drivers and that, unlike some other agency workers, he had not been taken on as a full-time employee.

He believed he was being discriminated against because of his hair, which he wore in dreadlocks, “in accordance with his Rastafarian beliefs”. Harris’s lawyer argued that the requirement to have tidy hair itself was prejudicial to Rastafarians but the EAT disagreed.

“That presupposes that [NKL] takes the view that dreadlocked hair is necessarily untidy,” it said. “If dreadlocks are compatible with tidy hair, or can be kept in a tidy manner, then the criterion does not in any way discriminate against those with dreadlocks.”

Pinsent Masons employment lawyer, Andrea Paxton, says the case serves as a useful reminder to employers to check their dress codes and equal opportunities policies.

Issue: 7294 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll