An employment tribunal found that a golf club fairly dismissed an employee for excessive personal internet use during working hours, despite the fact that it did not have a formal policy on staff use of the internet.
In Dansie v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis EAT/0234/09, the EAT held that a police force did not treat a male trainee officer less favourably on grounds of sex by requiring him to have his hair cut, when the same requirement would not have been demanded of a female officer with a similar hairstyle.
In Eweida v British Airways plc EAT/0123/08, the EAT held that a uniform policy that prohibited visible items of jewellery, unless worn in pursuance of a mandatory scriptural requirement, did not indirectly discriminate against a Christian employee who wished to display a cross over her uniform.
In Harris v NKL Automotive Ltd and Matrix Consultancy UK Ltd EAT 0134/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an employment tribunal's finding that a requirement to have tidy hair did not indirectly discriminate against a Rastafarian who wore his hair in dreadlocks.
In Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council EAT/0009/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against an employment tribunal's ruling that an employee who was dismissed for refusing to remove her veil while teaching had not been discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief.
In Mohmed v West Coast Trains Ltd EAT/0682/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given the first appellate decision on religious discrimination.