Male employee asked to cut hair short

MEM62

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Long hair on a man looks scruffy.

Nonsense. Long hair looks no more or less scruffy on a man than it does on a woman. It is all down to how it is kept.

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Can a policeman have long hair in a pony tail?

Irrelevant, we are not talking about a Police officer so the comparison is meaningless.

However, if the terms were in the contract that the individual signed when he started work he should abide by them. He may, of course, question why the policy was not enforced for some time but this discussion is not likely to go very far.

Making the case for discrimination, although it would appear one the face of it to be simple, would be complex and probably expensive. I recall something in the press recently about a case where women in a particular company were expected to wear high heeled shoes. I don't know what the outcome was but the process and legal arguments were not as straightforward as you would think. I guess the argument is where any particular line is drawn - for example, would men not being allowed to wear skirts in an office be discrimination?

Undervalued

MEM62 wrote: »

Nonsense. Long hair looks no more or less scruffy on a man than it does on a woman. It is all down to how it is kept.



Irrelevant, we are not talking about a Police officer so the comparison is meaningless.

However, if the terms were in the contract that the individual signed when he started work he should abide by them. He may, of course, question why the policy was not enforced for some time but this discussion is not likely to go very far.

Making the case for discrimination, although it would appear one the face of it to be simple, would be complex and probably expensive. I recall something in the press recently about a case where women in a particular company were expected to wear high heeled shoes. I don't know what the outcome was but the process and legal arguments were not as straightforward as you would think. I guess the argument is where any particular line is drawn - for example, would men not being allowed to wear skirts in an office be discrimination?

Quite.

It is quite lawful for employers to have very strict dress and appearance codes for staff. Nearly all are (inevitably) different for men and women. In some fields of work complying with those dress codes can be a significant expense and that too can differ from men to women. Generally that does not amount to unlawful discrimination. Occasionally the line can be crossed but finding out exactly where that line is without an expensive court case may not be easy.

TBagpuss

MEM62 wrote: »

Making the case for discrimination, although it would appear one the face of it to be simple, would be complex and probably expensive. I recall something in the press recently about a case where women in a particular company were expected to wear high heeled shoes. I don't know what the outcome was but the process and legal arguments were not as straightforward as you would think. I guess the argument is where any particular line is drawn - for example, would men not being allowed to wear skirts in an office be discrimination?

I think the high heels question is diferent in that there are fairly well documented health issues with wearing high heels, so there is an extra factor involved.

Googling suggests that there are hair-related cases which have been decided both ways, and I think part of it is beacause things like corporate culture / image / ptofessional norms can make a difference.

So you might get a diferent outcome if the employe is (say) a City accountantcy firm as against a Advertising agency or IT firm.

Smodlet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I3kWSBE5qo

I think your relative needs to decide which he wants more; his job or his hair.[/URL]

Les79

nicechap wrote: »

However, as others have mentioned is this something he feels like fighting over and does he have 2 years service yet?

If I recall, is sex discrimination not excluded when it comes to the 2 year rule?

I suspect that such a practice could be indirect discrimination but there will likely be ways for the employer to show that it has a "legitimate aim" depending on the context

Would be interesting to see someone else take this on, but I wouldn't like to have a go myself!

Anything due to religion or beliefs?

Gavin83

Les79 wrote: »

If I recall, is sex discrimination not excluded when it comes to the 2 year rule?

Yes. In all honesty if it's discrimination his length of service is irrelevant.

The real question is if this constitutes sex discrimination and like most on here I'll say I'm not sure, it's certainly a grey area. I'd probably lean more towards it being a case of discrimination but frankly I wouldn't like to be the one fighting this through the courts. I would have said it was fairly clear cut but the issue surrounding women having to wear high heels is interesting, I'd have thought that was already illegal.

Saying that, as someone who works in a professional environment and while I'm not really a fan of long hair on men I wouldn't say it looked unprofessional. However my opinion doesn't matter, the employers does and ultimately he needs to decide how much he wishes to fight this.

nicechap

Les79 wrote: »

If I recall, is sex discrimination not excluded when it comes to the 2 year rule?

I suspect that such a practice could be indirect discrimination but there will likely be ways for the employer to show that it has a "legitimate aim" depending on the context

Would be interesting to see someone else take this on, but I wouldn't like to have a go myself!

Anything due to religion or beliefs?

I believe you are correct.


However, finding some other reason like the colour of his socks would allow being dismissed under 2 years. It then becomes a 1 or 2 year battle going to ET to prove it was because of the hair length and not the colour of his socks.

Smodlet

nicechap wrote: »

I believe you are correct.


However, finding some other reason like the colour of his socks would allow being dismissed under 2 years. It then becomes a 1 or 2 year battle going to ET to prove it was because of the hair length and not the colour of his socks.

I am amazed any employee ever wins a tribunal, tbh. Employers have everything their own way.

highguyuk

Clear as mud then?!

I had a search around too before I posted and couldn't see any clear guidance. I'm of the opinion that as long as any individual, male or female, is dressed and presented appropriately for the job that it should be accepted.

My family member has for example been given "employee of the month" awards recently, whilst having long hair, clearly demonstrating that his style is having no impact on his work performance.

nicechap

Smodlet wrote: »

I am amazed any employee ever wins a tribunal, tbh. Employers have everything their own way.

I believe only about 1 in 50 applications goes on to win at ET. I can't find a more recent article (I'm sure it was BBC website last week) but this illustrates the breakdown.


https://www.pauldoranlaw.com/chances-winning-employment-tribunal/


The OP has probably found this link about dress codes since posting.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709535/dress-code-guidance-may2018-2.pdf