Dressing up

Dansie v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

It is well established in law that employers with dress codes must apply them equally to men and women. In Dansie v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that even if a code allows for a difference in treatment in one particular way, that would not contravene the law as long as, overall, it was applied equally to both sexes.

Basic facts

Before starting his police training in March 2008, Mr Dansie had been assured that his shoulder-length hair would comply with the Force's dress code. This stated that “The standard of dress should be smart, fit for the purpose and portray a favourable impression of the service”.

A separate manager’s guidance to the code stated that “Hair must be neat, not allowed to cover the ears and . . . worn above the collar. For safety reasons, ponytails are not permitted and long hair must be neatly and securely fastened up and worn relatively close to the head.”

When Mr Dansie reported for training his hair was slicked back on his head and tied at the back in a bun. However, he was then told to have it cut or face disciplinary action. He did so but took out a claim of sex discrimination and harassment on the basis that a female recruit would not have been required to cut her hair or, alternatively, face disciplinary action.

Tribunal decision

The tribunal decided that the policy was “gender-neutral” and therefore acceptable in law, provided it was applied equally to men and women.

In this case, the tribunal concluded that the Met would have treated a woman the same way and Mr Dansie had not, therefore, been discriminated against or harassed.

EAT decision

Relying on the decisions in Smith v Safeway and Department of Work and Pensions v Thompson, the EAT agreed with the tribunal that it was necessary to take a “package” approach when considering these cases.

In Thompson, the EAT said that the test was “whether, applying contemporary standards of conventional dress wear, the employer was asking men to display an equivalent level of smartness to that required of female staff by requiring them to wear a collar and tie”. That being so, the tribunal was wrong to find that requiring men to wear clothing not required of women amounted to less favourable treatment of men.

Applying those principles to this case, the EAT said that as long as the policy, considered as a whole, was applied equally to both sexes, fits “within the conventions of society” and the needs of the profession, then it was “fully acceptable” in law.

So even if the code allowed for a difference in treatment between men and women in one particular aspect, that would not necessarily amount to less favourable treatment. In this case that meant that even though women were not required to cut their hair or face disciplinary action, it was not discriminatory to require Mr Dansie to do so.

In order to decide whether the employer was discriminating against Mr Dansie, it was necessary to look at the code as a whole. The EAT was satisfied that a female recruit who failed to comply with the code (albeit not in relation to her hair) would have been treated in the same way. As the code applied a “conventional standard of appearance” and treated both sexes equally overall, it was not discriminatory,