header-logo header-logo

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

Tidy-hair policy not prejudicial

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll