Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Latest NewsSex discriminationDress codes

Government dress code guidance dismissed as ‘Janet and John’

by Jo Faragher 18 May 2018
by Jo Faragher 18 May 2018

The Government today issued guidance for employers on how they can ensure dress codes are not discriminatory. They do not contain any measures to toughen up sanctions on organisations with discriminatory rules, however, and have been criticised by one employment law firm.

Dress codes

Can an employer have a dress code requiring female employees to wear a skirt?

Dress and appearance policy

Dress codes and discrimination: what you need to know, has been produced following recommendations made more than a year ago by the Women and Equalities Select Committee and the Petitions Committee.

An inquiry into employer dress codes was launched in 2016 after a receptionist working on assignment at PwC was sent home for wearing flat shoes.

Nicola Thorp, who had been told it was her agency’s “grooming policy” to wear two- to four-inch heels, set up a petition to make it illegal for companies to force employees to wear high heels, which received more than 150,000 signatures.

The two parliamentary committees then produced a report, High heels and workplace dress codes, including evidence from hundreds of women who had been forced to dress a certain way at work that made them uncomfortable or they felt was discriminatory.

The report called for the Government to impose stricter penalties on employers that enforced discriminatory dress codes.

Today’s dress code guidance stops short of threatening harsher punishments, however.

It advises: “Dress policies for men and women do not have to be identical. However, the standards imposed should be equivalent. This means there must be similar or equivalent rules laid down for both male and female employees”, and that “it is best to avoid gender-specific requirements”.

It reminds employers that they can make reasonable adjustments to dress codes for disabled workers, and that “transgender employees should be allowed to follow the organisation’s dress code in a way which they feel matches their gender identity”.

It adds: “It is good practice when setting or revising a dress code to consider the reasoning behind it. Consulting with employees, staff organisations and trade unions may better ensure that the code is acceptable to both the organisation and staff. Once agreed it should be communicated to all employees.”

The report also provides examples of scenarios where requiring employees to dress a certain way would be lawful, such as: “An employer requires all employees to wear smart shoes, but does not require female employees to wear high heels. This would be lawful.”

Beverley Sunderland, managing director of Crossland Employment Solicitors, said the guidance failed to fully address the recommendations laid out in the initial report, and was more like a “Janet and John” guide to dress codes.

She said: “When the Women and Equalities Committee published their report in January 2017 they concluded that the law was very uncertain when it came to enforcing discrimination claims in situations where workers were, for example, asked to wear make-up or high heels, and the technical problems of passing the ‘less favourable’ test.

“They said (para 12) that ‘The Government Equalities Office does not appear to have a grasp of whether employers understand and comply with anti-discrimination legislation when they are implementing dress codes’.

“They made a number of recommendations to combat this including reviewing and if necessary amending the Equality Act 2010, increased awareness campaigns at school level, detailed Acas guidance, increased financial penalties on employers and the ability to obtain injunctions to stop sexist dress codes.

“The response of the Government was that the law adequately protected women and the only recommendation they agreed with was that Acas should still draw up guidance – which is still awaited.”

She added: “The use of the words ‘it is best to’ and ‘likely to be’ reinforces the view of the Women and Equalities Committee, which had spent a lot of time talking to those who do have a grasp on whether employers understand, that the law was not clear enough.”

Jo Faragher
Jo Faragher

Jo Faragher has been an employment and business journalist for 20 years. She regularly contributes to Personnel Today and writes features for a number of national business and membership magazines. She won the Willis Towers Watson HR journalist of the year award in 2015 and has been highly commended twice.

previous post
Tier 2 visas: Why employers can’t get the skilled labour they need
next post
Consultation into private sector tax avoidance a ‘fatal blow’

1 comment

Avatar
Julie Hooker 21 May 2018 - 11:14 am

Completely biased towards women, what about the obvious disparity in what is allowed as smart for women but not for men?

Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Christian awarded £22k following dismissal over religious necklace

24 Jun 2022

Boris Johnson’s partygate fixed penalty notice: any lessons...

14 Apr 2022

Christian nurse dismissed for wearing cross necklace wins...

6 Jan 2022

Office etiquette: time to stamp out pandemic ‘bad...

17 Sep 2021

Nursery worker asked to show less cleavage loses...

15 Sep 2021

Does the ‘new normal’ mean a new dress...

10 Sep 2021

Summer 2021: six potential issues for employers

20 Jul 2021

Headscarf ruling is a blow to inclusion

20 Jul 2021

European court allows employers to ban religious clothing

16 Jul 2021

Disney drops dress requirements in inclusion drive

15 Apr 2021
  • 6 reasons why work-based learning is better than traditional training PROMOTED | A recent Fortune/Deloitte survey found that 71% of CEOs are anticipating that this year’s biggest business disrupter...Read more
  • Strengthening Scotland’s public services through virtual recruiting PROMOTED | This website is Scotland's go-to place for job seekers looking to apply for roles in public services...Read more
  • What’s next for L&D? Enter Alchemist… PROMOTED | It’s time to turn off the tedious and get ready for interactive and immersive learning experiences...Read more
  • Simple mistakes are blighting the onboarding experience PROMOTED | The onboarding of new hires is a company’s best chance...Read more
  • Preventing Burnout: How can HR help key workers get the right help? PROMOTED | Workplace wellbeing may seem a distant memory...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+