header-logo header-logo

Tidy-hair policy not prejudicial

25 October 2007
Issue: 7294 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

News

A dreadlocked Rastafarian who was fired for his messy hair has lost his Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) discrimination claim.

The EAT backed the original tribunal finding that the claimant,  J Harris, who worked as an driver for NKL Automotive, had not suffered direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical beliefs, as he claimed.
The case was sent back to the tribunal to consider the question of victimisation discrimination.

Harris complained that he was getting less work than other agency drivers and that, unlike some other agency workers, he had not been taken on as a full-time employee.

He believed he was being discriminated against because of his hair, which he wore in dreadlocks, “in accordance with his Rastafarian beliefs”. Harris’s lawyer argued that the requirement to have tidy hair itself was prejudicial to Rastafarians but the EAT disagreed.

“That presupposes that [NKL] takes the view that dreadlocked hair is necessarily untidy,” it said. “If dreadlocks are compatible with tidy hair, or can be kept in a tidy manner, then the criterion does not in any way discriminate against those with dreadlocks.”

Pinsent Masons employment lawyer, Andrea Paxton, says the case serves as a useful reminder to employers to check their dress codes and equal opportunities policies.

Issue: 7294 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll