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 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.
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.
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.