Catatonic
Nine Lives
How do you tell where the leg hair turns into public hair?
Gender equality
- Thread starter DeadOnArrival
- Start date
DeadOnArrival
Belt Wide
I found this useful, even if the court of law was Conservative and perhaps biased in the outcome..
"Equality Act 2010, allows employers to impose dress codes on both men and women employees. These codes must be equivalent in nature as a claim of direct sexual discrimination may ensue if an employer is found to have treated one sex more or less favourably than the other. Employers (given that their policies are reasonable) are permitted to dismiss employees if they do not conform after warnings and adequate time to comply.
However, case law has established that employers, naturally, do not have to impose the exact same dress code on both sexes. Numerous items of clothing and hair styles, for instance, are often gender specific, and so imposing such regulations on all employees, regardless of sex, would be far from “fair, just and reasonable”; the adopted test when concerning all policy consideration related cases. The courts, then, have entitled employers to treat sexes “differently but equally by the standard of what is conventional”.
The case of Smith v Safeway plc [1996] illustrated this principle and gave an up-to-date depiction of the court’s attitude in such appearance associated cases.
The case concerned whether treating sexes differently necessarily gives rise to sexual discrimination, specifically: imposing differing hair length restrictions for male and female employees.
The claimant was required to have his hair cut in order to comply with the company’s dress code or risk losing his job; this, in the claimant’s opinion, amounted to the favourable treatment of women and thus discriminatory.
However, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the claim, with Lord Justice Phillips stating that if a sex discrimination claim is to be successful, it must “show, not merely that the sexes are treated differently, but that the treatment accorded to one is less favourable than that accorded to the other”."
In essence, the courts have an old fashioned view, if you will, in regards to long hair. Long hair isn't (accordingly to the courts) as "smart" or "professional" as say, shorter, more conventional hair styles. If an employer (depending on the job) requires a
"Equality Act 2010, allows employers to impose dress codes on both men and women employees. These codes must be equivalent in nature as a claim of direct sexual discrimination may ensue if an employer is found to have treated one sex more or less favourably than the other. Employers (given that their policies are reasonable) are permitted to dismiss employees if they do not conform after warnings and adequate time to comply.
However, case law has established that employers, naturally, do not have to impose the exact same dress code on both sexes. Numerous items of clothing and hair styles, for instance, are often gender specific, and so imposing such regulations on all employees, regardless of sex, would be far from “fair, just and reasonable”; the adopted test when concerning all policy consideration related cases. The courts, then, have entitled employers to treat sexes “differently but equally by the standard of what is conventional”.
The case of Smith v Safeway plc [1996] illustrated this principle and gave an up-to-date depiction of the court’s attitude in such appearance associated cases.
The case concerned whether treating sexes differently necessarily gives rise to sexual discrimination, specifically: imposing differing hair length restrictions for male and female employees.
The claimant was required to have his hair cut in order to comply with the company’s dress code or risk losing his job; this, in the claimant’s opinion, amounted to the favourable treatment of women and thus discriminatory.
However, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the claim, with Lord Justice Phillips stating that if a sex discrimination claim is to be successful, it must “show, not merely that the sexes are treated differently, but that the treatment accorded to one is less favourable than that accorded to the other”."
In essence, the courts have an old fashioned view, if you will, in regards to long hair. Long hair isn't (accordingly to the courts) as "smart" or "professional" as say, shorter, more conventional hair styles. If an employer (depending on the job) requires a
DeadOnArrival
Belt Wide
A little less thinking a and a lot more drinking
burrheadd
KING Of GIFS
What are you Samson?
You gonna lose all your super powers if you get a haircut
Chooose your battles wisely
Young Padawan
Wally
BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
Wally
BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
We have great hair and want to show it!
BakerMayfield2018
Fight the power.
Your outta control. We need @Indecisi0n
burrheadd
KING Of GIFS
DeadOnArrival
Belt Wide
Hey man,
It's the hair that's been landing me these chicks.
Nothing beats UPS chicks, they drink like men and got the strength like men..
Plus we can carpool
Wally
BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
She does 3000 a hour.Baddestin unloader ever
She don't shave those pits either
BakerMayfield2018
Fight the power.
Ups has million dollar lawyers to hold up any case for years till you run outta money.
burrheadd
KING Of GIFS
Oh, well in that case carry on wit yo badself
silverbullet2893
KILL KILL!!
Mark it 0 dude
Wally
BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
These baldies are jealous. Pay no attention. They haven't used a hair brush in years!
DeadOnArrival
Belt Wide
BakerMayfield2018
Fight the power.
DeadOnArrival
Belt Wide
BakerMayfield2018
Fight the power.
BakerMayfield2018
Fight the power.
I has double ear piercings. Also had top of my ear pierced , which Go an infection eventually every damn time.
Similar threads
