Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Gender equality
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DeadOnArrival" data-source="post: 2901751" data-attributes="member: 66833"><p>I found this useful, even if the court of law was Conservative and perhaps biased in the outcome..</p><p></p><p></p><p>"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. </p><p> </p><p>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”.</p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p> The case concerned whether treating sexes differently necessarily gives rise to sexual discrimination, specifically: imposing differing hair length restrictions for male and female employees. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p> 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”."</p><p></p><p>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</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DeadOnArrival, post: 2901751, member: 66833"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Gender equality
Top