Employment law cases

All items: Dress codes and uniforms

  • Mohmed v West Coast Trains Ltd

    Date:
    4 September 2006

    In Mohmed v West Coast Trains Ltd EAT/0682/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given the first appellate decision on religious discrimination.

  • Conventional appearance rule not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 September 1996

    In Smith v Safeway plc (16 February 1996) EOR69A, the Court of Appeal holds that an appearance code which applies a standard of what is conventional applies an even-handed approach between men and women, and not one which is sex discriminatory.

  • Sex discrimination: EAT rules dress and appearance standards not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 September 1977

    Rules which lay down standards of dress and appearance for both women and men are unlikely to constitute unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex, even if they impose different requirements on women (such as prohibition on wearing trousers) than on men, based on the difference in sexes. This is the principle which emerges from the recent EAT case of Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dress codes and uniforms.