In Danise v Metropolitan Police the EAT was asked to consider the requirement that a male trainee police officer cut his shoulder length hair. The EAT confirmed that this was not sex discrimination because, although a female officer would not have been required to do so, “a difference in treatment between the sexes on one particular aspect of the Dress Code is not necessarily more favourable treatment of a member of one sex compared with a member of the other sex”. Therefore in order to determine whether there was sex discrimination it was necessary to look at the dress code as a whole and determine whether the application of a test of “conventional standard of appearance” treated both sexes equally overall.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Senior Patent Counsel
Royal DSM NV